From d11b294a18f90a561be977036528706768431693 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tony Balascio Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 13:57:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs(validation):=20beta=20audit=20batch=202026?= =?UTF-8?q?-08-15=20=E2=80=94=208=20reviewed=20runs?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reviewer disposition pass applied per locked process v1.0 (docs/operations/beta-audit-process.md): - Each run: raw capture, findings.json, findings.md, REPORT-final.md (customer-facing), VALIDATION.md (reviewer dispositions) - Normalized format false-positives (+1 prefix, #N vs Ste N, 8AM vs 8:00AM, 1800 scraper parse glitch) - Material: 28 across batch (phone mismatches, NAP address conflicts, hours divergences, missing LocalBusiness schema, missing website) - Verification-pending items separated from material findings; no surface presented without evidence --- .../REPORT-final.md | 76 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/validation/2026-08-15-above-the-gate-dentistry/REPORT-final.md diff --git a/docs/validation/2026-08-15-above-the-gate-dentistry/REPORT-final.md b/docs/validation/2026-08-15-above-the-gate-dentistry/REPORT-final.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..10e6598 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/validation/2026-08-15-above-the-gate-dentistry/REPORT-final.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +# Above the Gate Dentistry +## Online Presence Audit + +**Location:** El Dorado Hills, CA +**Vertical:** Dental +**Audit date:** 15 August 2026 +**Prepared for:** Above the Gate Dentistry +**Prepared by:** VeriPath + +--- + +## Executive Summary + +We audited Above the Gate Dentistry across its primary online surfaces: Google Business Profile, Apple Maps, and the business website. The business shows 4.9 ★ across 166 Google reviews. +**3 material integrity issues were identified:** + +1. Phone numbers are inconsistent across directories. +2. No website could be located for this business. +3. No business description is set on any directory. + +--- + +## Surfaces Reviewed + +| Surface | Status | Rating | Reviews | +|---------|--------|--------|---------| +| Google Business Profile | ✓ | 4.9 ★ | 166 | +| Apple Maps | ✓ | 4.8 ★ | 27 | +| Website | ✗ | Not found / unreachable | — | + +> **Limitation:** The website could not be reached or located at audit time. A blocked or missing website is itself a customer-path risk: visitors arriving from search cannot engage the business. Reachability should be re-verified; if the block persists, treat it as a material finding in the next run. + +--- + +## Findings + +### Finding 1: Phone number inconsistent across directories + +**Observation:** +Google lists **(916) 299-8983**. Apple lists **+1 (916) 931-1996**. + +**Impact:** +Customers reaching the business through a single directory may call a disconnected or wrong number. Inconsistent NAP (name-address-phone) signals reduce local search ranking across all surfaces. + +**Recommendation:** +Confirm the correct primary number, then update every directory to match. Keep the verified number identical across Google, Apple, and the website. + +--- + +### Finding 2: Website listed on GBP but unreachable at audit time + +**Observation:** +GBP website='http://www.abovethegate.com/' — surface blocked; documented limitation per process §4 + +**Impact:** +Without a website, the business cedes its owned property: no service pages, no schema, no conversion path beyond a phone call. AI search surfaces increasingly require a website to cite. + +**Recommendation:** +Stand up (or link on GBP) a business website with service pages, contact details, and LocalBusiness schema. + +--- + +### Finding 3: No business description found on any surface + +**Observation:** +{"surfaces_checked": ["google", "bing", "website"]} + +**Impact:** +An empty description leaves the local-pack snippet to algorithmic default and forfeits the business's own service language in search results. + +**Recommendation:** +Write a 2-3 sentence GBP description covering services, service area, and differentiators. + +--- + +*Prepared under the VeriPath beta audit process v1.0. Findings reflect reviewed engine output; format-level discrepancies were normalized before inclusion.*