E-E-A-T audit for AI and Google search

What does an E-E-A-T audit check?

An E-E-A-T audit checks whether visitors can understand who you are, what you know and why your claims deserve consideration. It turns a broad quality question into specific, inspectable evidence across your site and brand presence.

We review the experience and expertise shown in relevant pages: named authors, editorial review, first-hand detail, methodology, and clear support for factual claims. We also look at authority signals such as consistent brand information and credible references, then assess trust basics including contact routes, ownership, disclosures and policies. The emphasis is not on adding badges indiscriminately; it is on making genuine evidence visible and consistent.

For founders and marketing leads, the audit is useful when publishing expert content, entering a sensitive category such as finance, or investigating why brand information is difficult to establish in AI answers. Bring your priority products, target audiences and pages that matter commercially. We map findings to concrete improvements rather than treating E-E-A-T as a score to chase. This work sits within broader AI search visibility and can be paired with a GEO audit when you need a wider review of discoverability.

Which trust signals should an AI and Google audit review?

Review signals that let a reader verify a claim: who wrote it, what supports it, and how the organization can be contacted. The audit checks these elements in context, so a useful credential or policy is connected to the pages where a visitor needs it.

We assess a practical checklist:

• Author and reviewer profiles that explain relevant experience and responsibility.
• Evidence behind important claims, including sources, methodology and meaningful examples.
• Clear ownership, company details, contact information and policies.
• Consistent descriptions of the organization, products and people across key pages.
• Content that answers the audience’s actual questions without unsupported certainty.

A common issue is a strong expert profile that is not connected to the content it supports, or a detailed product page that leaves basic company questions unanswered. We flag the relationship between evidence and claims, not just whether a page exists. For crypto and finance projects, we also check whether risk language, product descriptions and disclosures are understandable and aligned across the site. The outcome is an ordered list: what to clarify, what evidence to add, what to connect, and what should be reviewed by your legal or subject-matter team.

How does the audit support Perplexity and Google visibility?

The audit helps your team make reliable, relevant information easier to find and interpret; it does not treat an AI answer as a controllable placement. We review representative questions your audience may ask, then compare the information on your pages with the evidence and context needed to answer them clearly.

For Perplexity optimization, we examine whether key facts are stated plainly, supported by accessible sources and connected to a clear entity. For Google AI experiences, the review looks at page usefulness, content structure and the clarity of the underlying source material. Our Google AI Overviews work can address platform-specific visibility questions beyond the trust audit.

We also inspect technical discoverability at a practical level: important pages should be reachable, internally connected and understandable without relying on content that is hidden from readers. If your team is considering technical AEO, we can separate crawl and markup checks from editorial and reputation findings. Treat files such as llms.txt as an implementation question, not a substitute for accurate, useful pages. The audit records what was checked and explains which recommendations belong with content, engineering, communications or compliance.

What do you receive from the E-E-A-T audit?

You receive a written diagnosis and a prioritized action plan your team can assign. Each finding describes the issue, the evidence reviewed, why it matters to a reader, and a practical next step; recommendations are grouped so teams can act without confusing content work with technical changes.

The scope is agreed before review and typically includes:

• A review of the priority pages and brand information supplied by your team.
• A gap map covering experience, expertise, authority and trust evidence.
• Specific recommendations for content, page relationships and technical follow-up.
• A working session to discuss priority, ownership and open questions.

The process begins with a short scoping discussion. We then gather page URLs, existing brand materials and any relevant editorial or compliance guidance. After the review, we walk through findings and identify the actions your team can take first. If you need implementation rather than diagnosis, we can define a separate scope or connect the audit to content for AI answers. The project starts from $490 / project; final scope and timing are confirmed after we understand the number and type of pages to review.

What can an E-E-A-T audit not control?

An audit can improve the quality and clarity of evidence on your site, but it cannot dictate how a search or AI platform selects, cites or ranks sources. Google does not provide a simple E-E-A-T score for a site, and AI answer systems may retrieve different sources as their indexes, systems and query context change. Nor can adding llms.txt compel Google or an AI provider to use a page.

We therefore promise the agreed review, documented findings and delivery of the recommendations—not a particular citation, recommendation or ranking outcome. The practical response is to build durable evidence: keep claims supportable, make authorship and ownership clear, maintain useful pages, and review important facts when products or policies change.

Before commissioning, decide who can verify specialist claims and who owns changes to the website. If a finding touches regulated advice, product risk or legal disclosures, assign it to the appropriate reviewer rather than publishing an unapproved claim. The audit makes those handoffs visible. For ongoing observation after fixes, AI visibility monitoring can help your team track what is appearing in selected prompts and sources, while keeping platform output separate from the work delivered.

When should you pair an E-E-A-T audit with other work?

Pair the audit with another service when its findings point to a distinct task that needs its own owner. The audit identifies trust and evidence gaps; additional work can then address content production, technical implementation, or external brand context without blurring diagnosis and execution.

Choose a content engagement if key pages lack clear answers, sourcing or expert explanation. Choose technical AEO when the team needs support with structured data, crawler access or site architecture. Choose entity work when organization and product information is inconsistent across the web. If your main need is to observe changes in AI answers over time, monitoring is a separate fit. Our entity and knowledge graph work focuses on consistency and relationships, while digital PR for AI citations addresses earned external coverage.

A useful decision rule is to start with the blocker, not the channel: unclear proof calls for better evidence; inaccessible or disconnected pages call for technical review; limited independent context may call for communications work. You can commission the audit alone or use its findings to shape the next brief. Keep one owner responsible for confirming facts and approving changes, especially when product claims or financial disclosures are involved.

Prices

Starting prices in USD. Custom bundles and volume discounts on request. Payment in USDT, USDC, BTC, ETH, SOL, TON or your project token.

How it works

1. Scope the reviewWe agree on priority pages, audiences and the questions the audit should answer. You identify the people who can verify product and expertise claims.
2. Share source materialsYou provide relevant URLs, author information, brand materials and any editorial or compliance guidance. We confirm what is in scope before beginning.
3. Review evidence and accessWe assess visible trust signals, content quality, page relationships and practical technical discoverability across the agreed scope.
4. Prioritize findingsWe document gaps and pair each recommendation with an owner or team type, so content, technical and communications tasks stay distinct.
5. Discuss next actionsWe walk through the report, answer questions and help your team choose what to address first or scope separately.