> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.snowdoughnut.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # GEO checklist > The pass that checks whether an article can be retrieved, trusted, and cited when an AI model writes the answer instead of listing links. Run it alongside the pre-publish checklist. A separate pass from the [pre-publish checklist](/article-pre-publish-checklist), because it tests something different: not whether the article is good, but whether a model can find one part of it, trust it, and quote it. The reasoning behind each group is in [SEO and GEO concepts](/seo-and-geo-concepts). ## Can a passage stand alone? An answer engine retrieves chunks, not pages. Each section has to survive being pulled out of context. * Every section answers its heading in the first sentence, before context or setup. * No section depends on having read the section above it to make sense. * Pronouns near the start of a section refer to something named in that section, not in the previous one. * Headings are specific enough to identify the section's subject without the page around it. * The FAQ section exists, and its questions are ones people actually ask. ## Is there anything worth quoting? A model assembling an answer needs a fact, a number, or a phrasing it can lift. In controlled testing, adding quotations, statistics, and cited sources produced the largest measured gains in whether content was used. * At least one statistic that is specific, sourced, and dated. * At least one quotation from someone with standing on the subject. * Every claim that could be challenged has a citation next to it. * Original data, if we have it, is stated as a plain number in the body text and not only shown in a chart. * Definitions of key terms are written as definitions, in a sentence that would work quoted alone. * The article contains something a model could not generate without it. ## Is the entity clear? * The company name is written exactly as it appears on every other profile we control. * The product name is consistent with the rest of the site, with no informal variants. * The author is a real named person, with a bio and a link, matching how they are named elsewhere. * Key terms the article assumes are defined in the article. * `Organization` schema with `sameAs` links is in place site-wide. * `Article` schema is applied, with the author and dates populated. ## Is it fresh, and does that show? * The last-updated date is visible on the page, not only in the CMS. * The date reflects a substantive change, not a bump. * Every statistic carries the year it refers to. * Nothing in the article contradicts something we published more recently. * The next review date is set in the register. ## Is it structured for extraction? * Roughly a quarter to a third of the content is lists or tables, where the content is genuinely parallel. * Tables have header rows and are not used for layout. * Heading depth is three to five levels overall, without skipping. * Emphasis is used on key terms rather than scattered. * Numbered lists are used for sequences, bullets for unordered sets. ## Can it be crawled at all? * The page is not blocked in `robots.txt`. * AI crawlers are not blocked unless that is a deliberate decision the team has made: `GPTBot`, `ClaudeBot`, `PerplexityBot`, `Google-Extended`. * The content is in the HTML, not rendered only by client-side JavaScript. * The canonical URL points where it should. Blocking AI crawlers is a legitimate position for some businesses, and it is a decision to make deliberately rather than discover. A site that blocks them is choosing not to be cited by those engines, which is a coherent choice if the traffic tradeoff works out and an expensive accident if nobody meant to make it. ## Off the page These are not article-level checks, but they decide how much weight the article carries. Review them per cluster rather than per article. * The company appears with consistent naming across the profiles we control. * The author has a presence beyond this article. * Something in the article, usually original data, gives a third party a reason to reference it. * The distribution actions from the brief have owners and dates. ## Related resources * [**SEO and GEO concepts**](/seo-and-geo-concepts) Why each of these checks exists. * [**Article pre-publish checklist**](/article-pre-publish-checklist) The general quality pass. * [**Article standards**](/article-standards) The structure defaults. * [**Article brief**](/article-brief) Where the proof and entities are decided.