From 3943b478f8096a9b96878003a673236e05cc2a40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tonyjbala Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 20:19:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Add Cold Audit Proof Pack (internal Verified vs Indicative evidence base) --- .../cold-audits/proof-pack-cold-audits.md | 73 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) create mode 100644 research/cold-audits/proof-pack-cold-audits.md diff --git a/research/cold-audits/proof-pack-cold-audits.md b/research/cold-audits/proof-pack-cold-audits.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f1eab9 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/cold-audits/proof-pack-cold-audits.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +# DOP Cold Audit — Proof Pack (Internal) +**Author**: DOP (Leonard) · **Date**: 2026-08-09 · **Status**: Internal — NOT client-facing +**Purpose**: Consolidate the 5 real Cold Audits as the *Verified* evidence base, contrast against Bizl's *Indicative* (Tier-3) claims, and nominate the public case-study wedge. +**Repo**: all source audits committed under `research/cold-audits/` (Gitea, `tonyjbala`). + +--- + +## 1. Evidence-class framing (per Tony's ruling) +You established the DOP value model on two evidence classes. The Cold Audits operationalize exactly that split: + +- **Verified Evidence** — Tier-1/2, observed directly by DOP (live site schema, live search results, direct inspection). *This is what our 5 audits produce.* +- **Indicative Evidence** — Tier-3, self-reported by a vendor (Bizl's 4 case studies). Useful as a *wedge* in outreach, never as *proof* of DOP's own capability. + +The entire DOP credibility position rests on this distinction: **we show our work; Bizl shows a screenshot.** The audits below are the proof layer that makes that claim defensible. + +--- + +## 2. The 5 audits (Verified Evidence) + +| # | Vertical | Target | Headline finding (observed) | Commit | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| 1 | HVAC | Gilmore Heating/Air (Cameron Park) | 3 conflicting phone numbers + Antelope/95843 schema geo vs Cameron Park target | `ca87ac49` | +| 2 | Plumbers | D. Martel Plumbing (El Dorado Hills) | **Zero machine-readable NAP** — site publishes only AboutPage/ContactPage schema | `2ced37bc` | +| 3 | Dentists | Cameron Park Family Dentistry | Schema `name` = generic "Dentist in Cameron Park, CA" (not the brand); no `Service` entities | `320dea1c` | +| 4 | Law | Gordon Law Firm (El Dorado Hills) | Ranks #1 at home but invisible for Cameron Park; phone masked `+191****6261` in schema | `71d25516` | +| 5 | Multi-Location | Above the Gate Dentistry (2 sites) | 403 bot-block prevented full capture; structural NAP-split risk identified, **PENDING re-audit** | `16f04eb8` | + +All 5 are Tier-1/2: every number is either observed (schema dump, search result position) or explicitly flagged *unverified*. No vendor self-report is presented as fact. + +--- + +## 3. Verified vs Indicative — the contrast that matters + +Bizl's 4 case studies claim outcomes like "tripled," "4x," and "67–90 days." All are: +- **Tier-3** (self-reported by one vendor, single-firm), +- internally **disjunct** (one says 67 days, another 90; one says "tripled," another "4x"), +- **unfalsifiable** by an outside reader. + +Our 5 audits contain **observed, falsifiable facts**: +- A real business publishing **three different phone numbers** (Gilmore). +- A real business with **no machine-readable NAP at all** (Martel) — literally invisible to any AI-answer engine parsing structured data. +- A real multi-location practice whose **site hard-blocks crawlers (403)** — a structural silent-loss vector. + +This is the wedge. When we say "most local businesses are losing customers silently and can't see it," we can *show* three of them doing exactly that, by name, with the evidence. Bizl can only *assert* it. + +--- + +## 4. Wedge nomination (which become public case studies) + +- **Primary wedge — Gilmore HVAC.** The 3-phone conflict + wrong-city schema geo is the most visceral "silent loss" story: a customer in Cameron Park gets sent to Antelope, or to a disconnected line. Highest emotional + factual punch. +- **Secondary wedge — D. Martel Plumbing.** Zero machine-readable NAP is the cleanest "invisible to AI" proof — a single, undeniable technical fact that generalizes to every SMB. Easiest to explain in one sentence. +- **Hold — Above the Gate (multi-location).** This is the one vertical where Bizl had *no* case study, so it's our potential differentiator. But the audit is **PENDING re-audit** (403 block). Do not publish until Tier-1 schema + both GBP listings are verified. A half-audited multi-location case would undercut the "we show our work" position. + +--- + +## 5. Honest verification gaps (carried forward) +- **Foursquare**: unverified across all 5 (outage during audit window) — the single most important AI-data source per the DOP model; schedule a re-check. +- **GBP**: not directly inspectable (Google bot-blocks the VPS IP) — scored via Yelp Tier-2 proxy only. +- **Above the Gate**: site returned 403 to curl + browser; partial audit by design. +- **AI-answer presence**: web_search proxy, not ChatGPT/Perplexity screenshots (no LLM-answer tool available). + +None of these invalidate the Verified findings; they bound how far we can currently push each claim. State them in any client-facing version. + +--- + +## 6. Recommended action +1. **Build the public case study** from Gilmore (primary) + Martel (secondary) — both are fully Verified and need no re-audit. +2. **Re-audit Above the Gate** with a reachable IP (residential proxy or direct GBP access) to complete the multi-location proof, then promote it as the differentiator wedge. +3. **Re-check Foursquare** for all 5 once the source is back — close the biggest remaining gap in the Verified base. +4. **Retire Tier-3 reliance** in GTM: keep Bizl numbers only as Indicative wedge context, never as DOP-proof. + +--- +*All 5 source audits + this pack: `research/cold-audits/` on Gitea, committed as `tonyjbala`, byte-verified.*