UNCHARTEDSEOSEO automation for financial advisors, with every claim traced to something you signed.
A financial advisor cannot publish a performance figure, a credential or a regulatory statement that has not been checked, and an ordinary AI writer will produce all three without being asked. Here the system cannot: every number, credential, registration and disclosure comes from a registry your firm approved, and a draft containing anything outside it is repaired or refused. Then someone at your firm approves the article before it publishes; nothing goes live unattended. We do not write performance claims and we do not draft disclosures for you. Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year.
Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year. Annual is two months free.
Page updated 2026-09-04 • Nothing here is investment, tax, legal or regulatory advice
What is SEO automation for financial advisors?
SEO automation for financial advisors is an automated research, drafting, publishing and measurement pipeline with a fact lock in front of it. The system researches live search results, drafts articles for your firm’s WordPress site, checks every claim in the draft against a registry of facts your firm approved, and repairs or refuses anything outside it. A person at your firm approves the finished draft, and only then does it publish, with a snapshot taken before the change so it can be rolled back in one click. Afterwards your tracked keywords are checked daily for rank and for whether Google’s AI Overview cites you.
Two things in that description are unusual, and both are the reason this page exists. The first is that the fact lock is not a setting. It is not a review mode you switch on for regulated clients and off for the rest; the system has no path that reaches your website without passing it. The second is that the registry is yours. It is not a public dataset, not a scrape of your website, and not a model’s memory of what advisory firms usually say. It is the list of things your firm has decided it is willing to have printed, written down and signed, and it is the only vocabulary of facts a draft is allowed to draw on.
Why can’t an advisory firm point a general-purpose AI writer at its website?
Because the sentences that make financial marketing copy read well are exactly the sentences a firm is least free to write. Every content tool on the market can produce a fluent page about retirement planning. The question is what it does when fluency requires a specific number, and the honest answer, for a writer with no registry, is that it supplies one.
The specifics are the whole problem
A return figure. A statement about what clients typically achieve. A designation attached to a person who does not hold it. A claim that the firm is registered in a state where it is not. A fee described as flat when it is a percentage of assets. A superlative about being the best firm in a market. A promise about an outcome. None of these are stylistic slips. Each one is a sentence your firm would have to answer for, published under your firm’s name, on a page your firm owns.
A language model will fill the gap rather than leave it
Ask any general-purpose writer for a compelling page about retirement income and it will produce numbers, because numbers are what makes that page compelling. It will write about typical portfolios, historical averages and what clients have achieved, fluently, without hedging, because those sentences are well formed and appear on thousands of pages it has read. Fluency is not accuracy. A writer told only to write well will invent the specifics that make the writing good.
Checking against the open web does not save you
Some tools verify claims against public sources. That catches a wrong figure about a public index. It does nothing about a claim concerning your firm, because the open web holds no record of which states your registration covers, which designations each of your people currently holds, what your fee schedule actually says, or which disclosure your reviewer requires under a given paragraph. That record exists in one place, which is your firm. Until a tool holds a copy your firm approved, it has nothing to check the draft against.
Nobody accepts “the software wrote it”
A prospect, a client, a custodian or an examiner reading your website does not care which vendor drafted the page. The firm whose name sits at the top of it owns what it says. That is why the last action in this pipeline belongs to a person at your firm, on both plans, with no setting that removes it.
Volume multiplies the exposure
One invented sentence in one page is a problem you can find. The same generator running at up to 30 articles a month, unchecked, is a problem you find later, in a page you did not know existed, written in a month you were not looking. Automation with nothing refusing the bad sentence does not make the risk smaller. It makes it wider.
Your own rules are already written down
Most firms in this field already maintain a list of what they may and may not say, and who has to see a public communication before it goes out. The problem has never been that the rules do not exist. It is that no drafting tool was ever handed them. The registry is that handover, in a form software can enforce.
What goes into a financial firm’s fact registry?
The registry is built before a single draft exists, in a session with whoever at your firm owns public communications. It is not a questionnaire we file away. It is the vocabulary the drafting system is restricted to, and everything below is an entry type it holds. To give a sense of scale: one client’s registry on this system holds 24 facts, 10 numbers, 6 category rules, 37 banned terms, as recorded 2026-09-02, in a single client registry.
Services you offer, and the ones you do not
Financial planning, retirement income planning, tax planning, estate coordination, business owner services, investment management, insurance work: whichever of these your firm actually does, described the way your firm describes them. Just as important is the list of services you do not offer, because a general writer will happily advertise them on your behalf when a page needs another section.
Registrations and the jurisdictions they cover
What your firm is registered as, with which body, under which identifiers, and the states or jurisdictions that registration covers. Geography is where automated content fails most quietly: a page written to rank in a neighbouring state will describe you as serving it. If a jurisdiction is not in the registry, no page can claim it.
Designations and credentials, per person
Each individual at your firm, the designations they currently hold, the ones they do not, and how each person’s title should be written. Credentials are attached to people, not to the firm, and a drafting system that treats them as firm attributes will attach a designation to whoever is convenient in the sentence.
Performance, returns and outcome language
This is usually the shortest and strictest section of a financial firm’s registry, and for many firms it is empty by choice: no performance figures, no return numbers, no outcome claims, no client results, in any page, ever. An empty entry is a real entry. It tells the system that any draft producing such a sentence is refused rather than repaired.
Fees and how you are compensated
How your firm charges, in the words your firm uses, at the level of detail your firm publishes. Some firms publish a schedule; some publish a range; some publish nothing and say so. All three are registry states. What is not a registry state is a drafting tool guessing, and “typical advisory fees are around one percent” is a guess about you the moment it appears on your site.
Disclosure and disclaimer text
The exact wording your firm requires, stored as exact strings, together with the rule for which pages and which paragraph types must carry it. The system places the text you gave it, character for character. It does not compose disclosure language, shorten it to fit a layout, or improve it.
Firm facts, size and affiliations
Year founded, headcount, offices, custodial and affiliate relationships you are willing to name, professional memberships, awards you actually hold and the years you held them. These are the small facts that a writer rounds up: a firm founded in 2015 becomes “for nearly two decades” in a sentence that needed a rhythm.
Identity and how you are named
Your firm’s legal name, the trading name, the forms that are acceptable in a heading, and the forms that are not. Naming drift is the defect nobody audits for: a page that calls your firm something slightly wrong is wrong in the one place a reader checks first, and wrong in the entity signals search engines build from your pages.
The banned list
Words and phrases your firm will not publish under any circumstance: risk-free, safe, best, top-rated, proven returns, whatever your reviewer’s line actually is. This list is enforced as strings, in body copy, in headings, in meta descriptions and in schema, which is where banned phrases usually survive a sweep that only reads the visible page.
We do not decide what belongs in any of these sections. Your firm does, and your firm signs it. Our contribution is mechanical: we hold the list, and we make it impossible for the drafting system to step outside it.
What does the fact lock refuse, and what happens to the draft?
Two outcomes exist, and the difference matters. A claim that is wrong but correctable from the registry is repaired: the offending value is replaced by the approved one and the sentence is rewritten around it. A claim that has no approved counterpart at all is refused: the draft does not proceed with the sentence softened, hedged or moved lower down the page. The five examples below are the shapes this takes in a financial firm’s copy.
- A performance figure. The draft writes “clients have seen average annual returns of around 8 percent”. There is no approved return figure in the registry, and for most firms on this system there never will be. Outcome: refused. Not softened to “strong returns”, not attributed to a market average, not moved into a caption. The sentence does not exist in the version you are shown.
- A registration or a jurisdiction. The draft writes that the firm serves clients “across the Pacific Northwest” because a location page needed a regional sentence. The registry lists the jurisdictions your registration covers. Outcome: repaired to exactly those, or refused if the sentence cannot survive the correction.
- A credential on the wrong person. The draft attaches a designation to an advisor whose registry entry does not carry it, because the sentence read better with a credential in it. Outcome: repaired from that person’s entry, or the designation is removed entirely. Credentials in this system belong to people, and the check runs per person, not per firm.
- A dollar amount or a fee. The draft writes “our fees start at around 1 percent of assets” on a page about working with a planner. Unless that exact statement is a registry entry, the number is not ours to publish. Outcome: refused, and the paragraph is rewritten to describe how your firm charges in the terms your registry does approve, which for some firms is “our fee schedule is provided in writing before you engage us” and nothing more.
- A banned phrase, anywhere. “risk-free”, “safest”, “proven”, “top-rated”, “no downside”: if your firm banned it, the string is refused in body copy, in the H1, in the meta title, in the meta description and inside the page’s structured data. The last two are where banned wording usually survives, because most audits read the rendered page and never open the metadata.
The mechanism is a comparison, not a judgement. The system is not reasoning about whether a claim is plausible or defensible or likely to be true; it is checking whether the claim is in your registry. That is why it holds at volume, and it is why nothing about it improves or degrades depending on how the draft was prompted.
The differentiator, stated plainly: we cannot publish a claim about your business that you have not approved. Review is a person reading a draft and hoping to notice. This runs before that, on every draft, on both plans, with no switch that turns it off.
SEO automation for financial advisors: what is automated and what is not?
Most of the pipeline runs without a person. Two steps never do, and one of them is the reason the rest is safe to run at all. This is the full sequence, in order.
| Step | Who does it | Runs without a person? |
|---|---|---|
| Fact registry intake: services, registrations, jurisdictions, credentials, fees, disclosures, banned terms | Your firm, with us taking it down | No. Your firm signs it |
| Keyword research, SERP-based clustering and cannibalization checks before any new page | The system | Yes |
| Live SERP research and competitor scoping on the target term | The system | Yes |
| Drafting the article against your registry | The system | Yes |
| Fact lock: every claim in the draft checked against the registry | The system | Yes, and there is no setting that disables it |
| Repair of a correctable claim, refusal of one with no approved counterpart | The system | Yes |
| Banned-term check across body copy, headings, meta title, meta description and structured data | The system | Yes |
| On-page grading, readability control, internal linking and schema | The system | Yes |
| Approval of the finished draft | Your firm | No. Nothing publishes without it |
| Publishing to WordPress, with a snapshot taken before the change | The system | Yes, after your approval |
| Rollback of a published change | Your call, one click | No |
| Daily rank tracking on your tracked keywords | The system | Yes |
| Google AI Overview citation tracking on those same keywords | The system | Yes |
| Full technical site audit: broken links, redirect chains, schema state, internal link structure, index status through Search Console | The system | Yes |
| Monthly report of domains linking to two or more of your competitors and not to you | The system | Yes |
| Disclosure wording, advice, and any statement about performance | Your firm, always | Never automated. We do not write these |
Read the last row as the boundary of the product. We are a publishing system. We are not your compliance function, we do not give investment, legal, tax or regulatory advice, and we do not draft the language your reviewer is responsible for. What we do is make sure the rest of the sentences on the page cannot contradict the ones your firm already approved.
Who approves the article, and what does your reviewer actually see?
Whoever at your firm owns public communications. On a small advisory practice that is usually a principal; on a larger one it is whoever already signs off on marketing material. The system does not need that person to be technical, and it does not need them to read the page twice.
What is in front of them
The finished draft as it will publish, the target keyword it was built for, the internal links it will add, the schema it will carry, and the list of registry entries the draft drew on. If anything in the draft was repaired on the way through, the repair is shown: what the draft originally said, what the registry said, and which entry decided it.
What approval and refusal do
Approval releases the article to your WordPress site, and a snapshot of the page is taken before the change lands, so any publish can be undone in one click. Refusal keeps it off your site. There is no queue that publishes on a timer if nobody answers, and no plan on which an unreviewed draft goes live.
Why review stays quick
Because the reviewer is not hunting for invented numbers. Anything the registry could decide has already been decided, and the reviewer’s attention goes to the things software genuinely cannot judge: tone, whether the page is the right thing to publish this month, and whether a paragraph reads the way your firm speaks.
One clarification we would rather make ourselves: an approval step is not unusual. Content tools in this market ship one. What is worth your attention is not that a draft can be reviewed, it is what the software does before the draft ever reaches a human, and whether the checking can be switched off by whoever is in a hurry that week. Here it cannot, and the registry is the thing being enforced.
What does Google’s own guidance say about money topics?
Google publishes its guidance on helpful content openly, and one passage in it names this category directly. Read 4 September 2026, from Google Search Central, “Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content”:
“For example, our systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society. We call these ‘Your Money or Your Life’ topics, or YMYL for short.”
The same document states that of experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness, “trust is most important” and the others contribute to it. It also notes that E-E-A-T is not itself a specific ranking factor, and that search raters have no control over how pages rank. We quote it because it is the only description of this category published by the search engine itself, and because it is worth reading what it does and does not say before anyone sells you a tactic based on it.
What we take from it is structural rather than clever. Financial pages are read against a higher bar for trustworthiness, and the parts of trustworthiness a publishing system can actually affect are narrow and unglamorous: is the page accurate about the firm, is authorship clear, is the firm’s identity consistent from page to page, is the disclosure your firm requires actually present, and does the page answer the question it claims to answer. A registry-enforced pipeline is a way of holding those five things steady across every page published in a year. It is not a ranking trick and we will not describe it as one.
We should also be plain about what nobody can tell you from this document: it does not promise that accurate pages rank, and neither do we. See YMYL SEO automation for how the same constraint is applied across regulated verticals, and fact-checked AI SEO for the checking mechanism on its own.
Which pages does an advisory firm actually need?
Up to 30 articles a month is a ceiling, not a target, and a firm that publishes 30 unrelated pages a month has bought volume rather than a position. The work is arranged as a structure, and each page type below has a different relationship to the registry.
Service pages and the questions under them
One page per service your firm actually offers, and beneath each, the questions people ask before they hire someone for it. The service page draws almost entirely on registry entries, because it is a page about you. The question pages draw mostly on general explanation, which is where a fact lock matters less and a banned-term rule matters more.
Advisor profile pages
The highest-risk page type in this vertical and the one most often left to a general writer. Each person’s designations, roles, registrations and biography come from that person’s registry entry alone. A profile page is where an unregistered claim does the most damage, because it is the page a prospect reads to decide whether to trust a named individual.
Location and jurisdiction pages
Built only for jurisdictions your registry lists. This is the single most common way automated content puts a firm somewhere it does not belong: a generator asked for regional coverage will produce a page for the next city over, and the page will say you serve it. If it is not in the registry, the page is not built.
Life-event and decision content
Retirement, an inheritance, selling a business, a divorce, a new job with equity compensation: the searches people run at the moment they start looking for an advisor. These pages explain the decision and its vocabulary without instructing anyone what to do with their money, and without a single figure attributed to your firm that your firm has not approved.
Repair of pages already published
Existing pages are audited against the registry too. Most firms that have used any automated writer have inherited at least one sentence they would not sign today, and the usual place to find it is not the body copy but the meta description or the page’s structured data, which is where a claim survives a visual review of the page.
Answer-layer structure on every page
Every page opens with a direct, liftable answer to the question it targets, carries question-shaped headings, and ships structured data that matches what is actually on the page. That is what makes a page usable as an answer rather than only as a destination, and it is applied to every page rather than to a chosen few.
The same construction is used in the other regulated verticals we publish into, with a different registry each time: law firm SEO, medical SEO services and home services SEO, where the checkable facts are licence numbers and service areas rather than registrations and designations.
What gets measured after publishing, and what do the numbers mean?
Daily rank tracking
Every keyword on your plan, checked daily, with history kept so a movement can be read against the day a page changed. Up to 25 tracked keywords on Launch, up to 75 on Scale. On one client account the split is 105 keywords rank-tracked, 33 under daily SERP and citation research, as recorded 2026-09-02. The two numbers differ on purpose: a rank read is cheap and broad, a citation read is a heavier request, so the daily citation set is the smaller one and we say which is which.
Google AI Overview citation tracking
On the keywords in the daily citation set we record whether Google shows an AI Overview and, when it does, who it cites and whether that is you. That set is deliberately narrower than the rank-tracked set, because a citation read is a heavier request than a rank read. This is Google’s AI Overview only. We do not track prompts inside ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini, and nothing here should be read as a measurement of your visibility inside those products.
Technical audit, continuously
Broken links, redirect chains, schema state, internal link structure and index status through Search Console. On a financial site the audit findings that matter most are usually the dull ones: a redirect chain in front of a service page, or a page nobody knew was indexed.
Research before anything is built
Keyword research, SERP-based clustering and a cannibalization check run before a new page is created, so the system does not build a page that competes with one of yours that already ranks. This is the step that keeps a 30-article ceiling from turning into 30 pages fighting each other.
Monthly link opportunity report
Domains linking to two or more of your competitors and not to you, exported as outreach targets. On three client accounts the reports found 231, 99 and 288 gap domains, as recorded 2026-09-02. Read those as opportunities found, not links delivered: we do not build links, we do not run an exchange, and we do not promise placements.
On Scale, a person in the loop monthly
A 60-minute monthly strategy session, delivered personally, plus competitor teardown reports, Search Console integration and early access to new capabilities as they ship. Support response is within one business day, and we say that precisely because it is not same-day.
What do we refuse to automate for a financial firm?
We do not tell your readers what to do with their money, and nothing this system publishes is investment, tax or legal advice. Pages explain decisions and vocabulary; they do not recommend an action to an individual.
We place the disclosure text your firm gave us, exactly as given, on the page types your rule specifies. We do not compose it, condense it, or decide where your firm’s obligations begin and end.
No return figures, no outcome claims, no “clients typically achieve”, in body copy, in a heading, in a meta description or in structured data, unless such a figure is an approved registry entry of yours. For most firms here, that section of the registry is deliberately empty.
There is no unattended publishing on any plan. A draft that nobody at your firm approves stays unpublished, indefinitely, and nothing publishes on a timer.
And the things we simply do not do yet, said plainly
- We publish to WordPress. Not Shopify, not any other platform. If your firm’s site is not WordPress, this product does not fit it today, and we would rather tell you now than at onboarding.
- We do not deliver backlinks. No network, no exchange, no placements. The monthly report finds opportunities; acting on them is outreach, and outreach is yours or a specialist’s.
- We do not track prompts inside ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini. We track Google AI Overview citations on your tracked keywords. That is a narrower claim than the market makes, and it is the one we can support.
- We do not run agents on Reddit or Quora, and we do not publish content in other languages.
One clarification, because two sentences on this page could otherwise be read against each other. Early access to new capabilities on the Scale plan means a new capability reaches Scale accounts first once it exists. It is not a commitment that anything on the list above is being built, and nothing on that list is a roadmap item.
What happens when a fact changes, or a page has to come back?
A registry change is a one-line edit with a wide blast radius
Someone earns a designation, a registration is added or dropped, your fee wording changes, a service is retired. The registry entry changes once, and from that moment no new draft can state the old version. Published pages carrying the old wording are found by the audit and queued for repair.
Every publish has a snapshot behind it
A copy of the page is taken before each change lands, so any single publish can be reversed. This system has run over 300 page deployments across four client sites since August 2026, every one preceded by a snapshot. That is a count of deployments, not of pages, and a failed deploy is not counted as one.
Taking something down is not a negotiation
If your reviewer wants a live page gone or reworded, the rollback is one click and does not wait on a support queue. This is the part of the system a regulated firm should test first, and we would rather you tested it in the first week than in the week you need it.
What has the gate actually caught, and what can we show you?
A page about accuracy that cites unsourced numbers about itself would be self-refuting, so every reading below carries the date it was read and the base it was read from. The first item is a set of incidents rather than a reading taken on one day, so it carries a base and no date. None of them are about a financial services client; they come from the accounts this system runs today.
What the gate refused
The check has caught real errors on live sites: around 1,000 unapproved claims on one client’s site, nine fabricated customer reviews on our own site, and six invented dates caught in testing. Two of those three were legacy copy that predated the gate, which is the point: the check reads what is already published, not only what it wrote.
Positions held, keyword and date beside each
Position 1 for “nationwide property search” on a national property records platform, read 2026-09-02. Position 1 for “elevator smoke testing Portland” on an elevator safety firm’s site, read 2026-09-02. Both are non-brand terms; a brand term proves only that a site exists.
The next tier down, in full
Four keywords at position 3 on a national asset records platform: “nationwide asset search”, “tampa asset search”, “denver asset search”, “minneapolis asset search”. Four at position 2 across two other clients: “title search online” and “preliminary title report online” on the national property records platform, and “elevator modernization bid review” and “elevator safety inspection” on the elevator safety firm’s site. All read 2026-09-02. We publish the second and third positions alongside the firsts because a page that only shows its best row is telling you less than it appears to.
One registry on this system holds 24 facts, 10 numbers, 6 category rules, 37 banned terms, as recorded 2026-09-02. That is the whole vocabulary a year of drafting for that client is allowed to draw on, and it is small on purpose. A registry is not a knowledge base. It is a fence.
What does this cost?
Two plans. There is no third tier. Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year. Annual is two months free.
or $1,000 per year. Annual is two months free.
- Up to 30 articles per month, drafted against the facts you approved
- Fact lock on every draft: a claim outside the registry is repaired or refused
- Publishing to WordPress, with a snapshot before every change and one-click rollback
- Up to 25 tracked keywords, checked daily
- Google AI Overview citation tracking on your tracked keywords
- Full technical site audit
- Keyword research, clustering and cannibalization checks before every new page
- Monthly report of domains linking to two or more of your competitors and not to you
- Approval by your firm before anything publishes
or $2,500 per year. Annual is two months free.
- Everything in Launch
- Up to 75 tracked keywords, checked daily
- A 60-minute monthly strategy session, delivered personally
- Competitor teardown reports
- Search Console integration
- Early access to new capabilities as they ship
- Support response within one business day, which is deliberately not the same as same-day
| Item | Launch | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly | $100 | $250 |
| Annual | $1,000 per year | $2,500 per year |
| Articles per month | Up to 30 | Up to 30 |
| Tracked keywords, checked daily | Up to 25 | Up to 75 |
| Fact lock: only the facts you approved | Yes, and it cannot be switched off | Yes, and it cannot be switched off |
| Approval by your firm before publishing | Required | Required |
| Snapshot before every change, one-click rollback | Yes | Yes |
| Google AI Overview citation tracking | Yes | Yes |
| Monthly strategy session, 60 minutes, delivered personally | No | Yes |
| Competitor teardown reports | No | Yes |
| Search Console integration | No | Yes |
| Support response | Not included | Within one business day, not same-day |
Cancel anytime. Your plan runs to the end of the period you have paid for. Full detail on both plans is on the SEO pricing page, and the sequence from registry intake to publication is set out step by step on how it works.
What can’t we tell you yet?
A page selling accuracy has an obligation to mark the edge of what it knows. These are the questions we are asked that we cannot answer honestly today, stated as unknowns rather than dressed as confidence.
- Whether an AI Overview appears for your terms. Unknown until it is measured on your keywords, and it changes. We can tell you what we observe daily once you are tracked; we cannot tell you in advance, and a vendor who does is guessing.
- How often you will be cited once you are. We report a citation rate per client, dated, on the keywords that client tracks. We do not publish a rate averaged across our whole book, because we have not checked every row that would go into such a number, and an average we have not measured is not evidence.
- Where you will rank, and when. No ranking promise, no traffic promise, no timeline. Rankings shown on this page are historical positions on named keywords with the date they were read, and nothing more than that.
- What your obligations are. We do not know your firm’s rules and we will not opine on them. The registry does not make your firm compliant with anything; it holds the line your firm has already drawn, so that automated drafting cannot cross it. Whether the line is in the right place is your reviewer’s judgement, and a matter for your own counsel.
SEO automation for financial advisors: the questions firms ask
Can the system publish a performance figure about my firm?
Only if that exact figure is an approved entry in your registry. If it is not, the claim is refused rather than softened, and for most firms on this system the performance section of the registry is deliberately empty, which means no return figure, no average, and no statement about what clients achieve can appear in any draft. The check runs on body copy, headings, meta title, meta description and structured data.
Do you write my disclosures?
No. We place the disclosure text your firm supplies, exactly as supplied, on the page types your rule specifies. We do not compose, shorten or reword it, and we do not advise on whether it is adequate. That is your firm’s responsibility and your counsel’s, and we would be the wrong party to take it from you.
Who has to approve an article before it goes live?
Whoever at your firm owns public communications. Approval is required on both plans, on every article, and there is no setting that disables it and no timer that publishes an unreviewed draft. The reviewer sees the finished page, the registry entries it drew on, and any repair the fact lock made on the way through.
What happens when a designation, a registration or a fee changes?
The registry entry is changed once. From that moment no new draft can state the old version, and published pages carrying the old wording are found by the audit and queued for repair. Every change to a live page has a snapshot behind it, so a correction that goes too far can be reversed in one click.
Can it publish to a site that is not WordPress?
No. We publish to WordPress and nothing else today. Not Shopify, not another platform, not a static site. If your firm’s website is not WordPress, this product does not fit it, and that is worth establishing before anything else is discussed.
Does it track whether ChatGPT or Perplexity mentions my firm?
No. We track Google AI Overview citations on your tracked keywords: whether an AI Overview appears, who it cites, and whether that is you. We do not run prompt tracking inside ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini. It is a narrower claim than the market makes and it is the one we can stand behind.
Do you build backlinks for my firm?
No. Each month you get a report of domains that link to two or more of your competitors and not to you, exported as outreach targets. On three client accounts those reports found 231, 99 and 288 gap domains, as recorded 2026-09-02. Those are opportunities found, not links delivered. We do not run a network, an exchange, or paid placements.
What does it cost, and can I stop?
Launch is $100 per month, or $1,000 per year. Scale is $250 per month, or $2,500 per year. Annual is two months free. Cancel anytime. Your plan runs to the end of the period you have paid for.
Is any of this investment advice?
No. Nothing on this page or in anything the system publishes is investment, tax, legal or regulatory advice, and we are not a compliance function. We are a publishing system that will not state a fact about your firm you have not approved.
How do you start?
The first session is the registry: what your firm offers, where it is registered, who holds what, how you charge, what your reviewer requires, and the phrases you will never publish. Nothing is drafted before that exists.
- Published pricing, both plans on this page
- Registry first, before any drafting
- Your approval on every publish
- Cancel anytime, your plan runs to the end of the period you paid for
If you would rather look at where your firm stands first, start with the published pricing.
Where does this sit in the rest of the work?
The same standard applied across every regulated vertical we publish into, and what “Your Money or Your Life” means for the work.
The checking mechanism on its own: how a claim is compared against a registry, and what repair and refusal actually do to a draft.
The two neighbouring regulated verticals, where the registry holds bar admissions and jurisdictions, or credentials and scope of practice.
The same construction with lower-stakes but equally checkable facts: licence numbers, certifications, service areas and warranty terms.
If you want the sequence rather than the argument, how it works walks through registry intake, research, drafting, the gate, your approval, publication and daily measurement in order. If you want the numbers, both plans are on the SEO pricing page.
Updated September 6, 2026