Meo Advisors · Methodology
How the outside-in audit works
A public-evidence snapshot helps you decide what to investigate first. It cannot establish actual conversion rates, acquisition costs or marketing return.
Method reviewed · scoring/v1 · instant/v1 · bot-policy/v1
Scores and coverage
Pass earns 1, partial earns 0.5 and fail earns 0. Confidence does not change health points. Area score = weighted earned points / observed raw check weight × 100.
Observed applicable check weight / all applicable check weight; unavailable stays in the denominator; not applicable is removed.
Each check’s effective coverage weight is its area weight × raw check weight / 12. Removing a not-applicable check never redistributes its weight within the area.
An area needs at least 50% coverage to show a grade; otherwise it says “Not visible”. An area whose checks are all not applicable says “Not applicable”. Overall requires at least 60% weighted coverage, 4 eligible areas and resolved identity. Otherwise you see “Limited snapshot” with observations and no overall number.
Overall is the area-weighted mean of eligible scores, using the original area weights. Coverage and the measured-area count accompany it. Grades use unrounded scores; displaying a rounded score never upgrades the grade. Grades have no plus or minus.
- A: 90 to 100
- B: 75 to below 90
- C: 60 to below 75
- D: 45 to below 60
- F: 0 to below 45
Failed means no scoped useful observation or usable resolved snapshot. Limited means useful observations with insufficient overall eligibility. Useful-partial means overall eligibility with applicable gaps. Complete requires every applicable promised probe to finish with usable evidence. A limited run never counts as complete.
The check catalog
These 48 check definitions come from the executable scoring catalog. Each entry shows its raw weight, confidence ceiling and whether it supplies health points or context. Applicability follows the confirmed business model and evidence.
Website conversion · 20% area weight
- WC-01: Make the phone route callable
A sampled phone route takes extra effort to use.
Weight 3 · medium confidence · graded - WC-02: Clarify the first action
The sampled HTML does not give an early clear next step.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - WC-03: Shorten the enquiry form
The sampled form asks for several details before a conversation.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - WC-04: Provide a clear contact path
The sampled pages leave the next step unclear.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - WC-05: Explain what happens next
Basic service details help visitors decide whether to contact the business.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - WC-06: Add verifiable business details
Visitors need basic information about who runs the service.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · graded
Speed and technical · 15% area weight
- ST-01: Improve the mobile lab result
The measured page is slow under the stated lab conditions.
Weight 3 · high confidence · graded - ST-02: Reduce the largest content load
The sampled largest content element takes time to appear.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - ST-03: Stabilize the page layout
The measurement shows content moving during loading.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - ST-04: Strengthen transport hygiene
The observed page has a transport or mixed-resource gap.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - ST-05: Review public indexing directives
An observed directive can limit discovery of the intended public page.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - ST-06: Publish machine-readable business structure
The sampled site exposes limited crawl and entity structure.
Weight 1 · high confidence · graded
Search visibility · 15% area weight
- SV-01: Clarify the brand search result
The sampled brand query does not place the business first.
Weight 3 · medium confidence · graded - SV-02: Broaden useful service coverage
The provider tracks few relevant nonbrand terms for this scope.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SV-03: Review the sampled organic gap
Matched competitors have more modeled organic visibility in this sample.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SV-04: Give distinct services useful landing pages
The sampled keyword panel relies on few relevant pages.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SV-05: Clarify page titles and headings
Several sampled pages have unclear or duplicated search-facing structure.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - SV-06: Explain the core service in page text
The sampled text gives search systems little service context.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · graded
Local and reputation · 15% area weight
- LR-01: Make the public business profile clear
The completed sample could not confidently identify the expected business profile.
Weight 3 · medium confidence · graded - LR-02: Review recurring reputation themes
The measured rating suggests themes worth checking in the full review sample.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - LR-03: Build a consistent review-request process
Matched profiles show a larger review sample.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - LR-04: Align public business details
Observed public contact details differ across sampled surfaces.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - LR-05: Keep review feedback current
The newest measured feedback is older than the catalog window.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - LR-06: Respond safely to public feedback
Few sampled reviews have an owner reply.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · graded
AI search visibility · 10% area weight
- AI-01: Validate AI discovery coverage
The small neutral sample leaves room to test broader discovery.
Weight 3 · low confidence · graded - AI-02: Check the sources AI answers cite
The illustrative sample provides limited own-site citations.
Weight 2 · low confidence · graded - AI-03: Confirm relative AI discovery
The small answer panel cannot establish a stable discovery advantage.
Weight 2 · low confidence · graded - AI-04: Review AI crawler policy
Observed crawler directives restrict access to public business pages.
Weight 2 · high confidence · graded - AI-05: Align the public business identity
The sampled machine-readable identity is thin or inconsistent.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - AI-06: Expose useful service text in HTML
The sampled response exposes little clear service information.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · graded
Paid search · 10% area weight
- PS-01: Review the sampled paid footprint
Public estimates show only part of the acquisition picture.
Weight 3 · medium confidence · context only - PS-02: Review brand-query ad pressure
A competitor ad appeared on the sampled brand query.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - PS-03: Match the ad and landing message
The observed ad and destination do not clearly describe the same service.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - PS-04: Repair the sampled ad destination
The sampled ad route adds friction before contact.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - PS-05: Review the paid keyword sample
Several observed keywords do not match the confirmed service.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - PS-06: Confirm the paid comparison basis
The public paid context is thin and should be checked against account evidence.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · context only
Measurement · 10% area weight
- ME-01: Validate public analytics detectability
We could not detect analytics in the fetched pages.
Weight 3 · medium confidence · graded - ME-02: Document the tag configuration
The public sample does not expose a clear collector configuration.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - ME-03: Verify conversion-event wiring
The static sample does not reveal clear conversion-event configuration.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - ME-04: Check call attribution
The sampled phone path has no detected attribution configuration.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - ME-05: Review consent controls
Marketing collectors were detected without a clear consent-control marker.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - ME-06: Align measurement across the sampled path
The detected configuration differs across sampled pages.
Weight 1 · medium confidence · graded
Social · 5% area weight
- SO-01: Make official profiles easy to find
The sampled site exposes few official profile links.
Weight 3 · high confidence · graded - SO-02: Repair official profile links
An observed profile link is broken or points to a placeholder.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SO-03: Align profile identity
The sampled profile details do not clearly match the business.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SO-04: Clarify official profiles in brand search
The brand-query sample exposes few official social destinations.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SO-05: Update profile contact details
Observed social contact details differ from the business site.
Weight 2 · medium confidence · graded - SO-06: Use direct official profile links
Some sampled social links lead to sharing tools or placeholders.
Weight 1 · high confidence · graded
Choosing priorities
Priority RS = (2 × impact + 6 − effort + confidence points) × scope multiplier. Impact and effort are bounded judgments, each from 1 to 5, not measured revenue effects.
Confidence: high 2, medium 1, low 0. Scope: page ×1, site ×1.2, location ×1.5, brand ×2. Scope never expands beyond supported evidence. RS bands are A ≥24, B ≥16, C ≥10 and D below 10.
Sort by RS, then higher impact, lower effort, higher confidence and check ID. Consolidate a common root cause once. Show up to three fixes, at most one per area, and up to two supported strengths from distinct areas. Never pad a sparse report. Low-confidence AI samples cannot supply verified strengths.
Sources and dates
- Own public-page measurements
- Google PSI/CrUX
- DataForSEO
- Serper
- OpenRouter
Each displayed observation carries its source, instrument, scope and collection date or period. A page review date is not a new measurement date.
Only permitted public evidence enters scores, maps and reports. Restricted sources and their derivatives are excluded; missing data never becomes an invented zero.
A provider estimate remains modeled. Search ETV estimates clicks from tracked keywords; paid traffic cost estimates value from a provider model, not actual spend, invoices, acquisition cost or revenue.
The source list identifies instruments used when available, not a claim that each provider returned data for your business. Source dates on results describe the actual observation; the review date above describes this methodology.
What the evidence can establish
Public-business marketing surfaces only: no private account access, no form submissions, no mystery calls, no patient narratives. We remove incidental sensitive data from evidence before analysis or public output.
Static HTML heuristic: an action link, form field, tag or widget can be detected in fetched source. This does not establish rendered placement, usability, booking availability or staff response.
A detected tag is not proof of event delivery, attribution or correct account configuration. A tag-manager-only page makes downstream checks unavailable (container). Known server-side or consent-delayed measurement remains unavailable where the outside view cannot establish it.
Only a complete covered page sample with no known measurement markers permits the low-confidence finding “we could not detect” analytics. A missing marker behind a container cannot establish broken tracking.
Speed reports label lab tests and field data separately, including page versus origin scope and device/period. Missing CrUX coverage is unavailable. API blocks, timeouts, quota and incomplete datasets are stated separately.
Instant neutral discovery answers are illustrative samples. Show mentions and citations as numerator/denominator per engine with prompt version/date; missing answers are not misses. Branded comparison and reputation panels do not inflate discovery rates. Sample misses alone cannot produce a failing AI check or negative reputation claim.
AI access grades the versioned search/answer crawlers for tested instruments. Policies for training crawlers are observed only, without penalty. Robots group precedence and allow rules matter.
Paid presence and paid traffic cost are context, not health points. With no target ads observed, execution checks are not applicable: “no paid search observed”. Brand defence is graded only when a completed brand query shows competitor advertising pressure; execution is graded only from observed ads.
A matched map needs the target plus at least three relevant competitors with both axes from the same instrument, period and geography. Missing-axis rows are excluded and explained; a comparison table survives when no map is supported.
Map 1 reputation is (v / (v + m)) × R + (m / (v + m)) × C: v is review count, R is rating, m is set median review count with minimum 1, and C is set mean rating. At zero reviews it equals C, flagged “no reviews found”; an unmatched listing is excluded. Review count is the bubble size. AI discovery mentions stay in the comparison table.
Map 2 compares modeled organic ETV with DataForSEO paid traffic cost. Within-set rank percentiles or winsorized scaling describe sampled relative visibility; tied values share ranks, constant values show no spread. A chart does not establish market dominance.
The audit is automated by default. Reports with unresolved quality or sensitive-data concerns can be held for review. No universal human review, delivery time, legal compliance, clinical quality or business outcome is promised.
Deep scope is shown before commitment in a versioned manifest: up to 5 competitors, up to 300 pages, and a 24-prompt panel (12 discovery, 6 comparison, 6 reputation) across 2 engines and 2 repeats. Availability and funded scope determine which optional work is included; final reports identify completed, unavailable, omitted-for-budget and held-for-review stages.
Deep screenshots come from DataForSEO and support a separate experience rubric; screenshots do not test keyboard behavior or completed transactions and do not silently alter scoring/v1. Email and phone are required for the free full report; automated calls and texts are optional. Phone lookup does not prove subscriber assignment.
Reuse and retention
Compatible scope and scoring/pipeline versions can reuse an instant result for 24 hours. A corrected business, location or scope requires a new run. Reuse preserves the original observation dates.
- Raw evidence: 90 days.
- Snapshots and reports: 18 months.
- Leads: 24 months from last activity.
- Consent records: 5 years.
A lead deletion removes personal contact and delivery data and walkthrough requests. It revokes access to that person’s hosted reports, PDFs and evidence routes. We retain only minimum consent proof as a salted hash with its timestamp and text version, plus a hashed suppression record so we do not contact that person again. Public business evidence follows its normal retention windows: raw vendor evidence for 90 days and snapshots and reports for 18 months; a lead deletion does not erase that business evidence. The audit covers public business information and removes incidental sensitive data; it provides no legal or clinical assurance.