Market Authority File

Example Restoration Co.

Fictional company. No actual location, search findings or client performance is represented.

How to read this

The real Market Authority File is built from the applicant’s actual company, market and competitors. This sample shows the structure and reasoning only.

Strong · Verified foundationOpportunity · Area to investigateBaseline Needed · Evidence firstMonitor · Track over time

The labels below illustrate an assessment framework; they are not findings about a real business.

The decision before the work

Executive summary

Establish what is visible, what is credible, and what remains unknown — before prescribing work.

In this illustrative scenario, the first question is whether public business information, service content and the customer-review process tell a consistent story. We would verify the evidence before deciding which gaps deserve implementation.

A useful diagnostic distinguishes a correctable visibility gap from an unsupported assumption. It does not turn an incomplete baseline into a promise of growth.

Google Maps visibility

Opportunity

Does the public profile clearly match the work the company wants to earn?

What we would examine: Review service/category alignment, business information consistency and the connection between the profile and relevant website pages.
Why it matters: If those signals are unclear, verify accuracy before recommending broader local-search work.

AI-search visibility

Baseline Needed

Can a search system understand what the company does and where it operates?

What we would examine: Examine crawlable service content and consistent public business information. Record which sources support a recommendation, if one appears.
Why it matters: A mention is not proof of dependable visibility. Establish repeatable observations before drawing conclusions.

Review authority

Monitor

Does the review profile reflect an ongoing, honest customer experience?

What we would examine: Evaluate review recency, service context and the consistency of genuine review requests to eligible past customers.
Why it matters: Separate reputation gaps from request-process gaps. Never manufacture reviews, offer incentives or gate requests.

Competitive position

Baseline Needed

What would make another provider appear easier to understand or safer to contact?

What we would examine: Compare fictional Provider A and Provider B using the same service, content and reputation questions. No real competitor findings are represented here.
Why it matters: Look for decision-relevant differences, not a generic competitor score. A visible gap must be verified in the actual market.

Illustrative recommendations

Priority actions

These are examples of diagnostic next steps, not a prescription for your company. The actual baseline determines what deserves attention.

Verify service/category alignment and local business information
Identify gaps in crawlable service-area and service content
Evaluate review recency and the consistency of honest review requests
Check whether public business information gives AI-search systems enough consistent context
Establish a baseline before deciding what to change

What we would measure next

Maps observations: Repeat the same service and market checks, record the context, and compare with the established baseline.
AI-search context: Document public sources and recommendation context across repeated checks; distinguish changes from normal variability.
Review process: Track review recency and whether honest requests consistently reach eligible customers without filtering by sentiment.
Market changes: Revisit competitor information and completed changes, then explain what moved, what did not and what deserves attention next.

What you will not see in our reports

Invented certainty
Vanity metrics with no decision attached
Fake AI scores
Guaranteed ranking forecasts
A long deliverable list presented as business progress