# Source review for the citation observation pilot

Reviewed 6 October 2026. This is a limited operator review of selected claims and source identity, not a complete fact-check of every observed answer. No independent human review is claimed. The original answers are preserved even where wording needs investigation.

## Public sources actually opened

- [SEO Informatica homepage](https://seoinformatica.com/): current page identifies consultancies, advisory firms and other B2B service businesses, an ongoing plan starting at $1,111 a month, and a separately quoted website route. It separates search activity, sampled answers and enquiries and does not guarantee the outcomes. Web reader returned the current page, crawl labelled today.
- [About](https://seoinformatica.com/about/): current page describes the lab, direct working relationship, US and UK focus, remote work, separately quoted website projects and the 42-day review schedule. That schedule is a measurement plan, not an outcome deadline. Web reader returned the current page, crawl labelled today.
- [Case studies](https://seoinformatica.com/case-studies/): current page distinguishes the HR advisory and Xporate search records from attributed client feedback about a Welsh manufacturer. The search observations do not isolate causation. Web reader returned the current page, crawl labelled today.
- [Clarity Call](https://seoinformatica.com/start/): current page describes a free 30-minute call and written direction within two business days afterwards. Web reader returned the current page, crawl labelled today.
- [New website](https://seoinformatica.com/new-website/): current page opened. The public scope should be reviewed with its approved-input and pending-decision conditions before treating the timing as unconditional. No complete claim-by-claim assessment was performed.
- [SEO Informatica company page on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/seoinformatica): readable public page names SEO Informatica, links to its domain, and retains a Clarity Audit / Rebuild / Grow description. It also describes its target as founder-led service businesses. This is a company-controlled profile on a third-party host, not independent endorsement. Web reader returned content with crawl labelled today.
- [Second company URL appearing in answers](https://www.linkedin.com/company/seo-informatica-marketing): direct web-reader access returned an internal error. Perplexity's source card was readable, but that card is not a completed read of the destination. Keep this access limitation.

## What was found, and what remains open

The own-site citation Yes decisions were checked against retained answer-body links, excluding the separate Sources panel. P01 has an explicit new-website link in the answer body and homepage links in its copied Markdown. P02 has explicit case-study, technical-SEO and About links in the body. P05 has an explicit technical-SEO link. P06 has explicit case-study and terms links. The extracted anchor URLs are retained in citation-evidence.json. None of these four decisions relies solely on a retrieval candidate card.

P01 explicitly links to the readable LinkedIn company page in its copied answer. Its third-party brand citation can therefore be marked Yes under this pilot's host-based definition. That means a source outside our domain, not an independent recommendation. P02, P05 and P06 list LinkedIn among retrieved sources; not every grouped inline citation was expanded. Their third-party citation measures remain Not assessed.

The branded identity answers combine wording from the current website with company-profile wording. This is a source-consistency question to investigate. It does not prove which source caused a model to select a phrase or when an index refreshed. No public profile was edited during collection.

P02 attributes a quotation about a missing wall of reviews to About. That wording was not found on the current About page in this review. P06 calls the pricing all-in and introduces a headquarters statement. Those interpretations were not fully verified. A minimum fee is not a quote for every scope. Retain these as review notes; do not silently rewrite the observed answers.

The public sources corroborate several basic facts, but the whole branded answers contain additional factual and evaluative statements. All whole-answer factualAccuracy fields remain Not assessed. This avoids turning a few successful checks into blanket validation. The other providers and their claimed results in discovery answers were not audited; those transcripts are observations of an assistant's output, not our recommendations.

For unbranded answers, the absence of the target name can be assessed from the retained answer body. The own-domain citation field can be No when no target-domain link is present in the full captured answer/source list. Third-party pages were not exhaustively read for buried brand mentions, so a list of other domains is not enough to mark thirdPartyBrandCitation No.