Add Cold Audit Proof Pack (internal Verified vs Indicative evidence base)

2026-08-09 20:19:52 +00:00
parent 16f04eb88f
commit 3943b478f8
1 changed files with 73 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -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.*