01
Brand SERP Control
Does the subject’s owned properties dominate Page 1 when someone Googles their name?
Scoring
- ASubject’s owned properties hold 6+ of the top 10 results; no entity collisions; About page ranks page 1; knowledge panel present and accurate.
- A−Owned properties hold 5–6 of top 10; minor third-party interruption (one industry mention or interview); About page ranks but not top 3; knowledge panel present.
- B+Owned properties hold 4–5 of top 10; some interview or industry coverage on page 1; knowledge panel present, possibly with minor inaccuracies.
- BMixed control; 3–4 owned properties on page 1; entity collision starting to surface in People Also Ask.
- C2–3 owned properties on page 1; clear entity collision with a similarly-named subject; no knowledge panel.
- DThird parties dominate page 1; subject’s properties below the fold or absent; clear entity confusion across multiple top results.
- FNo owned properties on page 1; subject does not control their name SERP; first impression is entirely third-party-defined.
Example evidence patterns
- +Knowledge panel pulls accurate bio, photo, and verified social links → boost.
- −People Also Ask box surfaces questions about a different person with the same name → drag.
02
Reviews SERP Quality
When a buyer searches ‘[subject] reviews,’ does the SERP favor them, neutralize them, or harm them?
Scoring
- AFirst 5 results favorable; positive video reviews on page 1; Google’s chosen snippets pull constructive language; no hostile lead result.
- A−First 5 results mostly favorable; one balanced or skeptical-but-fair review in mix; Google’s snippets remain favorable; lead result is positive.
- B+Mostly favorable with one mixed result in top 5; balanced video carousel; Google’s snippets neutral or favorable.
- BMixed sentiment across page 1; one critical result in top 3 with a hostile snippet; positive content competes evenly.
- CCritical content in top 3; positive results push to bottom; hostile snippets selected by Google for queries like ‘is it worth it.’
- DLead result is hostile (Reddit thread, critical article, refund complaint); favorable content limited to subject’s own properties; Google selects damaging snippets.
- FPage 1 dominated by complaints, refund threads, or ‘is this a scam’ speculation; no favorable third-party content visible.
Example evidence patterns
- +Five video reviews on page 1, ratio of 4 favorable to 1 critical, Google snippet favors balanced takes → boost.
- −Lead Reddit thread snippet quoting ‘course was not worth $X’ or ‘I want a refund’ → drag.
03
Scam SERP Defense
When someone searches ‘[subject] scam,’ does the subject have any defense — or is the page entirely critical?
Scoring
- ASubject has placed counter-content on page 1; defended-to-critical ratio of 7:3 or better; criticism present but outranked by subject’s own scam-related framing.
- A−Strong counter-content presence; ratio of 5:3 to 6:3 in subject’s favor; criticism is real but balanced by deliberate placement.
- B+Some counter-content visible; ratio roughly 4:3; subject is starting to defend the SERP but not yet dominant.
- BRoughly balanced page 1; no deliberate counter-content strategy visible; criticism and neutral results split the page evenly.
- CCritical content moderately dominates; subject has limited or no counter-content; refund threads or critical articles in top 5.
- DCritical content dominates; refund threads, Reddit complaints, or critical articles in top 3; no counter-content placement.
- FPage 1 surfaces evidence of a reputation crisis: regulatory action, fraud allegations with documentation, or sustained complaint volume. No defense visible.
Example evidence patterns
- +Subject’s own article using scam-adjacent language (e.g. ‘High-Ticket is Mostly a Sham’) ranks for their name + scam → boost.
- −Three independent Reddit threads in top 5 with ‘I want a refund’ or ‘this is a scam’ → drag.
04
Reddit & Forum Visibility
When the subject’s name comes up in unmoderated communities, how is the conversation calibrated?
Scoring
- AMultiple Reddit threads with neutral or favorable sentiment; engaged discussion (15+ comments per thread); no concentrated complaint pattern; mentions appear across niche-appropriate subreddits.
- A−Active and balanced discussion across 3+ threads; some skeptical voices balanced by genuine fans; comment counts indicate real engagement, not pile-ons.
- B+Healthy mixed discussion across 2–3 threads; both critique and defense present; no pattern of organized complaints.
- BLight Reddit presence; one or two threads, mostly favorable but limited engagement; or balanced presence with low volume.
- CCritical threads outnumber favorable; some refund-request patterns starting to cluster.
- DDedicated complaint threads with high comment counts; subject’s name surfaces alongside refund-request patterns; community sentiment skews critical.
- FOrganized complaint patterns across multiple subreddits; ‘warning’ or ‘stay away from’ language in thread titles; subject is a recognized cautionary tale.
Example evidence patterns
- +A 13-comment thread asking ‘is this course worth it?’ with thoughtful pros-and-cons replies and no pile-on pattern → boost.
- −Three separate r/Scams threads with the same person posting receipts of unfulfilled promises → drag.
05
Third-Party Reputation Sites
Presence and ratings on Trustpilot, BBB, ConsumerAffairs, Glassdoor (where relevant).
Scoring
- AVerified profiles on at least one major review platform; aggregate rating 4.5+ stars with 50+ reviews; complaints (when present) are responded to professionally and resolved.
- A−Verified profile with rating 4.3–4.5; reasonable review volume; mixed reviews handled directly by subject or team.
- B+Profile with rating 4.0–4.2; healthy review volume; most complaints addressed.
- BProfile rating 3.5–3.9; or absence consistent with a digital-only business model where third-party platforms don’t apply.
- CRating 3.0–3.4 OR no presence at all on platforms where presence would be expected based on business model.
- DRating below 3.0; unresolved complaints accumulating; pattern of negative reviews citing the same issue; BBB rating C or lower.
- FBBB rating D or F; active warnings, regulatory complaints, or alerts from review platforms; pattern of fraud or unfulfilled service complaints.
Example evidence patterns
- +BBB profile with A+ rating, 12 complaints all resolved, no pattern of repeat issues → boost.
- −Trustpilot profile with 2.1 stars over 80 reviews, complaints clustered around ‘no refund’ → drag.
06
Claim Defensibility
Are the subject’s public claims (about results, revenue, expertise, credentials) verifiable and consistent?
Scoring
- ASpecific claims are sourced and verifiable; revenue claims match across years and venues; testimonials include full names and verifiable identities; credentials are real and checkable.
- A−Claims are mostly defensible; revenue or outcome claims are specific enough to verify; testimonials credible with most including full names.
- B+Claims defensible but general; testimonial set is credible but lacks deep verifiability; revenue figures consistent across appearances.
- BClaims are general rather than specific; testimonial language is vague (‘life-changing’) without specifics; income claims framed in a way that’s hard to verify.
- CSome claims escalate over time; testimonials anonymous or first-name only; before/after framing without context.
- DIncome guarantees, before/after transformations without context, anonymous testimonials; revenue figures inconsistent across appearances.
- FDocumented false claims about credentials, fabricated testimonials, or income claims contradicted by public records (court documents, prior interviews, etc.).
Example evidence patterns
- +Subject’s $5M revenue claim appears consistently across 3+ podcast appearances over 18 months → boost.
- −Sales page testimonial uses first name only, no verifiable identity, and the same wording appears on a competing course’s sales page → drag.
07
Reputation Risk Exposure
What’s structurally likely to damage the subject’s reputation in the next 12 months? Weighted 1.5× in the composite.
Scoring
- ADiversified across platforms, audiences, and revenue sources; no single point of failure; methodology and claims are conservative; no acute risks visible.
- A−Diversification mostly strong with one minor structural risk worth noting; subject appears aware and proactive.
- B+One or two structural risks identifiable but manageable; some platform concentration or claim escalation patterns; subject has mitigation paths.
- BMultiple structural risks; significant platform dependence or escalating claims; risks are visible to a careful observer.
- CStructural risks compounding; risks are no longer hypothetical — patterns match creators who have faced public reputation events.
- DAcute risks visible; specific risk signals (claim drift, refund volume, controversy proximity); pattern matches creators who have faced public events in past 24 months.
- FActive reputation crisis already underway, or imminent based on visible evidence (regulatory inquiries, mass refund requests, ongoing public dispute, abandonment of audience).
Example evidence patterns
- +Subject has publicly diversified into newsletter, podcast, courses, and consulting with stable revenue mix across all four → boost.
- −80%+ of audience traffic comes from a single platform whose algorithm change would cripple reach → drag.
