Method
Editorial log
Every published page on this site, who reviewed it, when, and what the review changed.
Scaled content is penalised when it is published without review. Rather than assert that review happens, the record is kept here and the build will not publish a page whose review block is missing or dated before the page was written.
One collection is reviewed differently and the table says so rather than hiding it. Market pages carry no third-party figure — every publishable fact on one is a named authority, a section number, an institution or a link — so each is checked by retrieving the source and searching it, and the URL, the status, the hash and the matched passage are recorded. A field that cannot be established that way is dropped; a page whose required fields cannot be is not published. Everything that carries a figure somebody else measured is still read by a person before it ships.
| Page | Type | Reviewed by | Reviewed | What the review changed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Which enquiries get a person, decided the same way every time | Solution | Siddharth Sharma | 2026-08-05 | Added the low-volume answer that recommends not buying this, after the draft read as though every business needs a scoring system. Replaced a claim about budget being the strongest signal with timeline language, which is what the field evidence supports. |
| The leads you already paid for, answered | Solution | Siddharth Sharma | 2026-08-06 | Replaced the thirty-eight-percent no-reply figure with the traced 23% and rewrote the threat around what was actually measured — one enquiry to each of 2,241 firms — rather than around a percentage of leads. The deck lost its headline number and gained a plainer sentence, which is the right trade when the number is smaller and the source is real. On 2026-08-05: cut a paragraph claiming speed improves conversion on its own, and moved lead scoring into the qualification page. |
| Most of the buying happens before anyone contacts you | Solution | Siddharth Sharma | 2026-08-05 | Removed a paragraph on nurture sequences that duplicated the follow-up page, and replaced it with the composition-versus-volume measure. Added the bargain-hunter objection because it is the first one raised every time pricing is published. |
What the build refuses to publish.
Four checks run before any page in this system is generated, and each one stops the build rather than producing a warning nobody reads.
A page must name, in writing, what is on it that could not appear unchanged on a sibling page — and no two pages may give the same answer. Independently of that, every page is reduced to a fingerprint with its own subject and place names masked out; if two fingerprints match, or come close, both pages are named and the build stops. That is the check that catches a page whose only distinguishing feature was the city in the heading.
A page must also carry at least two datapoints that are specific to its own subject rather than to its category, and if the same figure is claimed as specific on two different pages, it was specific to neither. Pages ship in cohorts with a size cap so indexation can be observed between them, and every page carries the review block that produces the table above.
All four are properties of the schema, not of anyone remembering. Reviewed by Siddharth Sharma, except the 0 market page(s) above, which are checked against their sources and carry the record of it.
GATES
A gate enforced by a person reading pages stops being enforced somewhere around page 60.