A GEO site audit with inspectable findings

Start with the page and the capture

Pick the page that should answer a buyer's question. Record its requested URL, intended canonical URL, expected audience and the reason for inspecting it. A single-page check is a defined task; it is not evidence that every URL on the site was examined.

LLM Citely's audit workflow records findings against a captured page and its acquisition method. Review the requested and final URLs, status and capture time when they are available. If the evidence came from supplied HTML, the report must retain that scope.

The free HTML readiness checker reviews pasted source in the browser. Account-based URL audits use a configured capture route. Their availability and fees require the relevant workspace configuration; the public checker does not fetch a URL.

Look at evidence before the status label

A finding should say what was checked, what was observed and what a maintainer can do next. For example, a canonical declaration in a supplied HTML snapshot can be inspected. Whether the final deployed URL returns a redirect needs an actual HTTP observation.

The local product screenshot below shows the actual findings component with an illustrative capture. It does not claim that a customer site or AI crawler was contacted.

Keep not-checked evidence visible

A failed capture is an access or availability problem to investigate. It is not a passing audit and it does not show that an AI answer omitted the brand. Likewise, a field absent from the capture should remain unavailable rather than being assigned a reassuring default.

Use the crawler-rule checker for a separate question: what does the supplied robots file say about a specific path? Retain both the file and test path. That local rule decision does not test a firewall, login, CDN or provider request.

The audit checklist keeps those evidence layers separate during a review.

Move a finding into accountable work

Choose a finding with a concrete acceptance condition. “Improve AI visibility” is too broad to verify. “Correct the canonical to the intended public URL and save the final response plus served declaration” gives the maintainer something checkable.

Add the owner, page, evidence reference, priority and recheck date in the action-plan template. A technical acceptance check can show that the page was fixed. A later AI observation is a different result and should be reported separately.

If the finding is editorial, use the content workbench to preserve the source context with the draft. Do not let a technical score become an unsupported writing instruction.

Retest the changed page, then interpret the scope

Keep the previous result, capture method and time. After the change, inspect the same target again and note whether the requested URL, served URL or observation method changed. A useful record can explain both a resolved finding and an inconclusive check.

Google's technical requirements concern crawl access, a working page and indexable content. Meeting them does not guarantee indexing or a supporting link in an AI answer. For a complete manual process, follow run a GEO audit.