Input
A reproducible failure
A defined site or section with a visible search, crawl, rendering, performance, migration, or measurement problem and access to enough evidence to compare affected and healthy behavior.
Implementation-first service
Technical SEO audit that tells you what to fix first
Use this when search visibility is weak or falling but the failing layer is not yet clear. The audit compares affected and healthy output, traces the problem across the site and delivery stack, and returns a prioritized implementation path—not a dump of every warning a crawler can produce.
Typical issues
What this lane is built to isolate
The initial scope stays narrow enough to compare affected and healthy behavior instead of treating the entire site as one undifferentiated problem.
- Search traffic dropped after a migration, redesign, or platform change
- Important pages are crawled or discovered but not selected for indexing
- Canonicals, redirects, sitemaps, rendered output, or internal links disagree
- WordPress, Next.js, JavaScript, cache, CDN, or tracking changes introduced an unclear regression
- An existing audit contains hundreds of findings but no owner, sequence, or verification method
Output
A technical after-state
A concise evidence pack, findings grouped by failure path, priority based on impact and implementation dependency, an owner for every accepted issue, and a checkable definition of done. Small fixes may be implemented inside the agreed scope; larger work is separated before it begins.
Boundary
No invented outcome
The technical correction can be verified immediately. Rankings, traffic, and revenue require later observation.
Audit format
Every accepted finding has five fields
- Symptom: the observable failure and affected URL or template set
- Evidence: response, rendered output, crawl, Search Console, performance, or tracking data
- Owner: application, CMS, CDN, analytics, content, or release process
- Change: the smallest safe correction and its dependencies
- Verification: the live check that closes the finding
Scope control
Not a machine-generated warning export
The first pass concentrates on the failure paths that can explain the visible symptom. It does not inflate scope by restating every generic crawler warning.
Pricing changes only when the evidence shows a wider implementation or release boundary. That work is separated before it starts.
Evidence paths
Related implementation and diagnostics
Start with one reproducible failure
Have an affected URL and a visible symptom?
Send what broke, when it changed, and what the correct live behavior should be. Add a healthy comparison URL when one exists.