Content is structured so an answer engine can extract and attribute it

What the source requires

Google frames its content guidance as a self-assessment rather than a specification: "Evaluating your own content against these questions can help you gauge if the content you're making is helpful and reliable." The same page states that E-E-A-T "isn't a specific ranking factor". So the checkable question is structural — does a page state what it is about near the top, answer the question it poses, and name its sources where a reader or an engine can find them — not whether it earns a placement.

Why this is hard to satisfy

The gap here is the opposite of the usual one. Practices are sold "E-E-A-T optimisation" and "AI visibility scores" as though a number existed to move. It does not, and paying to move it is paying for folklore. Meanwhile the structural work that genuinely helps an engine quote you accurately goes undone because it is unglamorous.

What we do about it

Report structural findings only: whether a page answers the question it raises, whether claims carry a named source, whether headings describe content rather than tease it. Advisory, and deliberately unscored — we will not produce an E-E-A-T number, because Google says it is not a ranking factor and selling a score for it would be selling folklore.

In build · phase three