Field guides
Five guides, each supporting a specific part of the inspection standard. We publish these because a work order is more useful when the person actioning it understands the mechanism — not because a content calendar demanded a post this week.
The audit is not the problem. What happens in the four weeks after the audit is the problem — and it is fixable with structure rather than willpower.
Most technical SEO checklists are inventories. This one is a diagnostic sequence — ordered so that each check is only worth running if the previous one passed.
Most people respond to every exclusion reason the same way: resubmit the URL and hope. Half of these reasons mean the system is working correctly, and two of them mean something entirely different from what the label suggests.
A perfect Lighthouse score on your laptop tells you almost nothing about what your users experience. Field data is a measurement; a lab score is a prediction — and they disagree constantly.
You cannot control who links to you. You have complete control over how you link to yourself — and on most sites that control is exercised entirely by a CMS default.
Because five is how many we had something genuinely worth saying about. Publishing volume for its own sake is the exact behaviour that creates the index bloat and cannibalisation we inspect for in IX-04 and IX-05. It would be a poor look to fail our own standard for the sake of a content calendar.