Janady13/thatstupidcomputer / private/standards/SEO-AIO-Library.txt

1SEO / AIO GRAPH SYSTEMS — RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION EXPANSION 2============================================================ 3Release: 2026.09.12-g40 4Research review date: September 12, 2026 5Intended use: accurate human instruction and evidence-led AI-assisted implementation. 6Status: a researched library expansion, not a deployed website or live graph audit. 7 8READ THIS FIRST 9--------------- 10This expansion defines 40 selected graph types, representations, and practical graph views. It is not a claim that there are exactly 40 relevant graphs in computer science, that search engines disclose all of their graphs, or that these 40 views are 40 independent ranking systems. Many are different views over one source-linked data model. The names and priorities organize this library; they are not professional certifications or provider-mandated departments. 11 12There are four different kinds of authority here: 131. Documented provider systems, such as Google's Knowledge Graph and Shopping Graph. 142. Standards and protocols, such as RDF, JSON-LD, PROV-O, SKOS, SHACL, and Open Graph. 153. Published methods, such as GraphRAG and HNSW approximate-neighbor indexing. 164. This library's proposed analytical and operating views, including an E-E-A-T evidence graph, a SERP observation graph, and a release-evidence graph. 17 18A standard can define valid structure without certifying truth. A provider can describe a system without exposing its current internals. A useful internal graph can improve consistency without being a ranking factor. Sources S01–S49 are listed at the end and in Research/sources.json; individual cards identify their relevant source basis. Standards are pinned references, not claims that no later specification exists. 19 201. WHAT THE SUPPLIED LIBRARY ALREADY HAS 21-------------------------------------- 22The supplied TXT is a conversion of 135 embedded documents from the HTML release 2026.09.09-d26. Its R11 charter already requires stable identifiers, truthful Person/business/document distinctions, exact identity links, graph consistency, and claim provenance. The public entity plan already prohibits inventing organizations, credentials, or Wikidata identities. Those foundations are retained. 23 24The supplied master index lists framework-eeat.md, SERP-Optimization.md, and framework-entitysalience.md as legacy, not fully verified. Those index entries are not equivalent to complete, freshly researched graph lessons. The export also references companion artifacts that are not included in the TXT. This expansion does not claim to have recovered or revalidated an unseen original archive. 25 26The additions here are a typed graph catalog; practical personal/business modeling; explicit E-E-A-T and SERP evidence views; private AI-retrieval and governance views; examples and blocked templates; and executable offline package checks. No commercial tier, role number, or original text has been silently rewritten. R11 remains the graph/structured-data lead. R14 governs factual claims; R08 URL contracts; R12 AI observations; R16 measurement; R20 privacy; R24 integration; R25 authorized release; R26 scoped acceptance. 27 282. START WITH A RELATIONSHIP, NOT A PICTURE 29----------------------------------------- 30A graph contains nodes and relationships. A typed semantic example is: 31 32 [article] --author--> [person] 33 [article] --publisher--> [organization] 34 [service] --provider--> [organization] 35 36In RDF, the basic unit is a subject–predicate–object triple; datasets can separate graphs. JSON-LD is one way to serialize linked data using JSON. A visual network diagram is only a view: the useful asset is the inspectable identity, relationship, evidence, and version record. [S12, S13] 37 38For this library, a relationship that makes a material real-world claim must also identify its basis. "Joseph founded Organization A" is not merely a line to draw. It is an assertion requiring the right person, the right organization, an actual founding relationship, and evidence. Ownership, founding, employment, operating a website, publishing an article, and using a brand must not be substituted for one another. 39 40Use a durable entity registry and a separate claim registry. The registry distinguishes things from their documents. A person may have multiple profile pages without becoming multiple people. An organization may publish several websites without those sites becoming the same page. A brand may identify a commercial offering without being a separate legal organization. 41 42Do not infer that an absent fact is false. An unknown founder, office address, credential, or legal name remains unknown. A graph that leaves unsupported attributes empty is preferable to one that invents a complete-looking biography. 43 443. PERSONAL AND BUSINESS MODEL FOR JOSEPH 45--------------------------------------- 46Joseph's name and the domains ThatDevPro.com and ThatDeveloperGuy.com are user-supplied context. This task has not independently audited their live pages, legal structures, official profiles, ownership evidence, or search-engine recognition. Do not turn the following decision process into published claims without verification. 47 48First establish Joseph's approved public identity and its canonical profile home. Then inventory each actual operating organization, trading name, brand, website, and service. Decide which distinctions are real before choosing types. Keep a register of ambiguities instead of guessing that the two domains are either the same legal business or separate legal businesses. 49 50The proposed logical model is: 51 52 Joseph (Person) 53 ↔ actual authored work and approved profile pages 54 ↔ only verified professional or business relationships 55 56 Operating organization(s), once established 57 → real brand(s), where applicable 58 → actual service(s) 59 → website(s) and published work 60 61 ThatDevPro.com / ThatDeveloperGuy.com (websites) 62 → their verified publisher/operator 63 → distinct pages and purpose 64 65Choose one stable public identity for a person or organization and reuse it consistently wherever that exact entity is represented. A page's canonical URL and the identity of its subject are separate decisions. Do not migrate an existing identity or page solely because this document shows a cleaner-looking example. 66 67Schema.org's sameAs identifies the same item through an unambiguous reference. It is not an "all my websites" field, an ownership relationship, or a way to borrow authority from related Wikipedia topics. [S04] The packet's example deliberately omits sameAs because no actual third-party identity URLs have been verified here. 68 69For an appropriate biography page, ProfilePage can point through mainEntity to the Person. A real article can reference its actual author and publisher. A real service can reference its provider. ProfilePage is not a universal type for every business landing page. [S03, S07] 70 71Implementation sequence proposed for Joseph: 72- Approve actual person, organization, brand, website, and service identities. 73- Record evidence and the canonical-home decision before minting production IDs. 74- Render approved facts consistently in visible HTML and applicable JSON-LD. 75- Check existing public profiles for exact identity, then add only justified identity references. 76- Test all selected representations and record engine observations separately. 77 78The general library should retain this decision process and a neutral synthetic example, not hard-code Joseph's private facts into every future client build. 79 804. THE E-E-A-T GRAPH THAT IS USEFUL TO BUILD 81------------------------------------------- 82Google discusses experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness as qualities associated with useful content; E-E-A-T itself is not a specific ranking factor. Google does not supply an "E-E-A-T graph" specification or public score for this library to implement. [S01] 83 84Our proposed E-E-A-T evidence view instead asks a concrete question: what supports this particular experience or expertise claim? 85 86 claim about capability 87 → actual work performed 88 → original evidence with scope and date 89 → an attributable explanation 90 → authorized publication 91 → independent corroboration, when it genuinely exists 92 93Examples of defensible inputs are a documented repair, an original design process, a reproducible test, a relevant qualification actually held, or a correction made when evidence changed. A case study must distinguish observed outcomes from causality. A public methodology article can teach a process without pretending that a client engagement occurred. 94 95Store the source owner and whether each mention is owned, paid, syndicated, or independently earned. Two sites owned by the same person can truthfully describe that person's work, but they should not be counted as two independent endorsements merely because they use different domains. The anti-circularity rule is part of this library's evidence design. 96 97Use the view to find unsupported assertions, stale biographies, overbroad claims, missing author responsibility, and public evidence gaps. Do not convert it into an invented Google score or require artificial citations for every sentence. The objective is justified claims and useful instruction, not graph density. 98 995. THE SERP GRAPH THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE MEASURED 100---------------------------------------------- 101SERP means search engine results page. The proposed graph is an observation model, not an exposed internal search-engine graph. Each result appearance belongs to a snapshot; the same URL appearing twice or in different features should not be flattened into a timeless "ranks for" edge. 102 103Record engine, surface, query, observation time with time zone, language, location setting at the least sensitive useful resolution, device class, collection method, personalization assumptions, result feature, position definition, raw URL, and evidence reference. Unknown values remain null. Do not infer the user's precise location or private search history. 104 105Represent the relationship as: 106 107 snapshot --for-query--> query 108 snapshot --contains--> result occurrence 109 result occurrence --points-to--> URL 110 result occurrence --has-feature--> organic / local / ad / other observed feature 111 112Query-to-document graphs are naturally modeled with two node sets; the detailed snapshot design here is our own use of that representation. [S40] 113 114To compare two observed result sets A and B, a simple descriptive overlap is: 115 116 Jaccard(A, B) = |A intersection B| / |A union B| 117 118Define whether the members are full URLs, canonical pages, or domains before calculating. Do not mix definitions between comparisons. If the union is empty, record the result as undefined, not as perfect similarity or zero visibility. A position-sensitive metric needs its own explicitly declared weighting and is still not an engine's proprietary weight. 119 120Use overlap to discover candidate clusters and competing answers, then inspect user intent and content. A competitor sharing several results does not prove its schema, page length, or internal-link pattern caused the ranking. A sampled absence is not proof that a website never appears anywhere. 121 1226. AI CITATIONS NEED THEIR OWN OBSERVATION LAYER 123----------------------------------------------- 124Bing's current AI Performance documentation supports analysis of grounding-query and cited-page relationships and explicitly separates citation observations from ranking, authority, and traffic. Grounding phrases must not be relabeled as the original user prompts. Coverage, aggregation, and denominators matter. [S22, S23] 125 126Keep separate record types for an actual captured answer, an aggregated report row, a citation occurrence, and a source-support assessment. An aggregated report must not be converted into fabricated individual answers. A page cited by an answer may support only one part of that answer; inspect the relevant source passage before asserting support. 127 128Google's current guidance also points to a Generative AI performance report in Search Console. Reconfirm the available report, account coverage, and field definitions before building an importer; a private graph cannot substitute for actual account access. [S21] 129 130Recommended outputs are a dated citation-observation table, a source/claim support map, and a separate referral/lead view. Keep unavailable evidence explicit. Never multiply citation counts by assumed click-through or conversion rates and present the product as measured customers. 131 132OpenAI documents different access roles for search, training, and user-directed retrieval. Treat those as distinct controls and observations. A search crawler's permitted access does not prove that a page was selected or that a private library was learned. [S27] 133 1347. WHAT PUBLIC GRAPHS AND APIS DO NOT GIVE YOU 135--------------------------------------------- 136Google's Knowledge Graph is a documented entity system. Its older Knowledge Graph Search API is read-only, returns matching entities rather than a connected-graph export, includes a migration notice, and warns against a production-critical dependency. An API response score is not a website authority or E-E-A-T measurement. Recheck the current replacement product and terms before designing a new integration. [S10, S11] 137 138Google has also described Shopping Graph and, historically, a Topic Layer associated with Knowledge Graph. These are useful concepts to teach, but historical announcements are not complete current architecture specifications. Merchant data and relevant public content are inputs through supported mechanisms, not an interface for writing arbitrary ranking relationships. [S31, S44] 139 140Wikidata and OpenAlex offer useful public entity and scholarly-data resources. Use them for reference discovery and identifier reconciliation with source and identity checks. Do not create misleading entries, copy unsupported attributes, or treat inclusion as an endorsement. [S36, S37] 141 142Open Graph is the social-preview protocol, not Google Knowledge Graph. Its metadata should be accurate and useful to sharing consumers, but it does not replace your entity or evidence model. [S35] 143 1448. PUBLIC PUBLISHING VERSUS PRIVATE AI RETRIEVAL 145----------------------------------------------- 146Maintain two deliberate projections of the approved data: 147 148PUBLIC 149 Actual useful pages, approved identity facts, accurate bylines, applicable 150 structured data, images, navigation, and supported feeds when relevant. 151 152PRIVATE 153 Raw evidence, client records, ownership documentation, review decisions, 154 graph-extraction candidates, source lineage, permissions, tests, and workflows. 155 156Do not publish the private corpus, AGENTS instructions, logs, access tokens, client messages, or inferred relationships to make a graph easier for crawlers to discover. A robots directive is not a substitute for access control. 157 158Google's generative-search guidance does not require special AI files or special schema. Private GraphRAG chunking is an internal retrieval choice, not a reason to break every public article into tiny pages. A custom public /graph.json endpoint should exist only for a named consumer and a reviewed contract, not because it supposedly forces all engines to use it. [S21] 159 160The practical architecture is one governed registry with multiple adapters. Generate selected public facts into HTML and suitable structured data. Use private source-backed records for AI retrieval and audits. Keep public and private storage and authorization boundaries enforceable, not merely decorative visibility labels. 161 1629. GRAPH-RAG IS AN OPTIONAL RETRIEVAL METHOD, NOT AN SEO SWITCH 163--------------------------------------------------------------- 164Microsoft GraphRAG organizes source material using extracted entities and relationships and can combine graph-linked information with original text units. Its documentation describes multiple retrieval strategies. [S24, S25] 165 166For this library, retain the source text and version first. Extract candidate entities, resolve them carefully, and store candidate relationships with provenance. Generated summaries are derived artifacts and inherit restrictions from their sources. They must not become new independent evidence just because another model wrote them. 167 168Evaluate a pilot against ordinary text search and a vector-retrieval baseline using tasks such as: 169- Find the current claim and supporting source for one structured-data rule. 170- Distinguish a person from an organization with a similar name. 171- Retrieve an older rule only when the question concerns the older date. 172- Refuse a request to expose private evidence in public markup. 173- Identify conflicting source statements without inventing a resolution. 174 175Measure answer support, entity-resolution errors, missed applicable sources, restricted-data leakage, latency, and cost. Do not assume the graph approach wins every task. An HNSW index is a graph of approximate vector-neighbor relationships, not the same thing as a graph of verified facts. [S26] 176 17710. MACHINE-READABLE CLAIM CONTRACT 178----------------------------------- 179The supplied claim.schema.json is a library record schema, not Schema.org markup. It keeps candidate facts separate from publication approval. The object is either a referenced entity or a literal; the two forms are not interchangeable. Example and candidate records remain intentionally blocked for publication-readiness purposes. 180 181Required concepts include: 182 claim ID and namespace-qualified predicate; 183 subject and typed object; 184 evidence class and source locators; 185 observation time and effective interval, when known; 186 status: candidate, supported, disputed, retired, or unknown; 187 confidence rationale, not an uncalibrated ranking-like number; 188 owner/source independence classification; 189 verification state and reviewer record; 190 private/public-approval state and actual authority to publish; 191 example flag, review date, and dependent graph views. 192 193The schema can test form. The included Python helper tests a deliberately limited structural readiness policy. Neither can verify that a reviewer is real, that evidence supports a statement, or that a client authorized publication. Human or otherwise genuinely authorized review must evaluate actual evidence. The helper always reports authorization_granted=false. 194 195Changing a candidate to "supported" by editing JSON does not create support. A source URL without a relevant locator does not establish a claim. A copied article with a different URL is not independent corroboration. A missing field must not be filled with a plausible guess solely to satisfy validation. 196 19711. ACCEPTANCE LAYERS 198--------------------- 199Use separate outcomes for separate checks: 200 201A. Record validity: JSON parses; required fields and types are present. 202B. Identity consistency: IDs are unique and refer to intended distinct entities. 203C. Relationship validity: selected predicates fit the intended meaning. 204D. Evidence review: material assertions have relevant source-backed support. 205E. Temporal applicability: historical or superseded instructions are not used as current. 206F. Privacy and permission: the actual system prevents unauthorized disclosure. 207G. Page agreement: public structured data agrees with visible approved facts. 208H. Feature eligibility: the current targeted provider requirements are satisfied. 209I. Observed discovery: actual crawl/index/result/citation evidence is recorded. 210J. Business outcome: actual qualified inquiries or revenue are measured separately. 211 212SHACL provides a standards-based way to check graph constraints; this package supplies a JSON Schema rather than claiming to ship a full SHACL implementation. Neither syntax nor shape conformance proves factual truth. [S16] Public feature validation is a separate task. [S08] 213 214For each required check, retain PASS, FAIL, BLOCKED, or NOT_APPLICABLE with rationale. Missing live access is BLOCKED, not a fabricated pass. A local fixture is not production evidence, and a second pass by the same assistant is not an independent audit. 215 21612. EVALUATION WITHOUT FAKE AUTHORITY SCORES 217------------------------------------------- 218These are proposed internal quality measures, not search-engine metrics: 219 220Provenance coverage: supported material public claims divided by material public claims in the declared sample. Report the sample, exclusions, and manual-review method. 221 222Identity-resolution precision: reviewed correct accepted matches divided by reviewed accepted matches. Keep ambiguous and unreviewed matches outside the numerator and report their counts separately. 223 224Reference closure: internal references resolving to expected records divided by tested internal references. External URLs require separate checks; they are not unresolved just because they are not nodes in the local graph. 225 226Staleness exposure: number of current-use artifacts depending on claims whose review is overdue under the chosen internal policy. Overdue means review needed, not automatically false. 227 228Contradiction burden: unresolved material disputes and their dependent outputs. Do not hide them in one average confidence score. 229 230Retrieval support rate: sampled answers whose material assertions are supported by the retrieved sources, using an explicit review rubric. This needs actual evaluated answers, not a theoretical score. 231 232For a zero denominator, report undefined or not applicable with reason rather than manufacturing a perfect percentage. Metrics should identify useful next actions, not become optimization targets detached from truth. 233 23413. CURRICULUM AND WORKED CHECKS 235------------------------------- 236Lesson 1 — Identity versus document. 237Exercise: one developer has two websites and three social profiles. How many people exist? 238Expected answer: the records may describe one person, but exact matches require evidence. Websites and profile pages are separate entities/documents. Do not infer the number of legal businesses from the number of domains. 239 240Lesson 2 — Exact identity versus relationship. 241Exercise: two brands share an owner. Should they be linked with sameAs? 242Expected answer: no, not merely for shared ownership. Record the actual relationship and keep their identities distinct. Use sameAs only when the reference unambiguously identifies the same item. [S04] 243 244Lesson 3 — Provenance versus repetition. 245Exercise: six articles repeat one press release. How many independent sources support its central claim? 246Expected answer: this dataset shows one underlying origin unless independent investigation is demonstrated. Six publication URLs alone do not establish six independent confirmations. 247 248Lesson 4 — Evidence versus E-E-A-T scoring. 249Exercise: an AI writes "internationally recognized expert" because the entity graph has many edges. 250Expected answer: reject or rewrite the claim unless real evidence supports it. A graph's density is not an expertise credential or an official E-E-A-T score. 251 252Lesson 5 — Snapshot versus timeless ranking. 253Exercise: a service page is absent from one mobile result snapshot in one city. 254Expected answer: report that bounded observation. It does not establish absence from every search or a causal reason for the result. 255 256Lesson 6 — Citation versus business outcome. 257Exercise: a report shows 100 citations but no referral or CRM data. 258Expected answer: report the citations with scope. Referral sessions, leads, and revenue are unavailable, not zero and not estimated actuals. 259 260Lesson 7 — Shape versus truth. 261Exercise: a valid JSON-LD graph says an invented person earned an invented award. 262Expected answer: syntax may pass, but evidence/publication checks fail. A shape validator cannot establish the real-world claim. 263 264Lesson 8 — Retrieval versus publication. 265Exercise: GraphRAG finds a useful client email proving an outcome. 266Expected answer: use only within authorized private scope; do not publish or disclose it without actual permission and redaction review. A derived summary can still leak confidential content. 267 268Lesson 9 — Time and authority. 269Exercise: a fresh blog contradicts an older applicable official specification. 270Expected answer: inspect scope, effective dates, and source authority. Freshness alone does not resolve the conflict. 271 272Lesson 10 — Delivery versus discovery. 273Exercise: public JSON-LD renders correctly, but there is no engine observation. 274Expected answer: report successful delivery checks only. Indexing, panel inclusion, citations, and rankings remain unobserved. 275 27614. IMPLEMENTATION ORDER 277------------------------ 278Priority P0: personal identity; actual organizations/brands; cross-domain relationships; entity resolution; authorship; claim provenance; internal navigation; canonical policy; crawl/render evidence; public representation consistency; acceptance; permissions. 279Deliverable: a small approved registry, source-backed claims, limited public projection, and an inspectable test report. Do not publish candidate identities merely to make the graph look complete. 280 281Priority P1: E-E-A-T evidence, reputation, topics, query/page relevance, SERP and AI-citation observation, conversion semantics, Open Graph, curriculum, and workflow routing. Local and migration modules activate when applicable. 282Deliverable: useful explanations and evidence, working observation definitions, and isolated public/private data flows. A module marked applicable still needs actual data and tests. 283 284Priority P2: private GraphRAG pilot, vector-neighbor indexing when needed, temporal/supersession controls, contradictions, source-impact mapping, citation projections, and co-occurrence analysis. 285Deliverable: measured retrieval comparisons and a maintenance process. Do not choose an infrastructure stack by fashion or a hypothetical SEO boost. 286 287Priority P3: commerce, localization, media, professional/social graphs, scholarly data, and events as the actual website or teaching objective requires. 288Deliverable: specialized contracts and truthful data, not empty graph templates represented as deployed capabilities. 289 290These priorities are a proposed dependency order, not provider mandates or a guarantee of search improvement. Preserve original 26-role routing rather than launching 40 independent agents or creating 40 databases. 291 29215. MAINTENANCE AND SOURCE GOVERNANCE 293------------------------------------ 294Every source record needs a title, publisher, exact URL, reviewed date, scope, and limitations. The supplied source register does not pretend that a review date is a publication date or that source pages were archived. Add actual effective dates when established. 295 296Proposed maintenance policy: re-open fast-changing platform guidance before a deployment decision that depends on it; run a periodic change review for provider features; review identity claims when the owner reports a change; and review evidence permissions before every new public use. Select actual scheduling and ownership in the host project. Nothing in this packet installs a scheduler or background monitor. 297 298On change, record the specific altered claim, evaluate applicability, mark affected artifacts for review, test proposed revisions, and publish a bounded changelog. A changed webpage hash is only a signal to inspect; navigation edits are not necessarily policy changes. Keep superseded lessons available as history with their dates, but out of default current-use retrieval. 299 30016. AI PROJECT INTEGRATION CONTRACT 301----------------------------------- 302Use the existing root AGENTS.md and role router. Add a reference to this expansion only after merging with project instructions; do not replace a real AGENTS.md automatically. This packet includes an integration snippet, not a remote configuration change. 303 304An AI task should receive: the authorized objective; verified site facts; relevant graph IDs; selected role owners; actual read/write limits; current sources; desired public/private outputs; acceptance criteria; and rollback requirements for any approved change. Retrieve only relevant lessons and records rather than loading the whole library as unquestioned authority. 305 306The assistant must distinguish proposed work, actual code changes, locally executed checks, untested external behavior, and live engine observations. It may not fill missing evidence with fictional outputs, self-granted approval, fabricated credentials, or a claim that changing persona made its review independent. 307 30817. PACKAGE SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 309--------------------------------- 310This release adds the curriculum and machine-readable starting structures. It does not build a production graph database, install GraphRAG, access Joseph's accounts, verify all public profiles, submit search data, deploy markup, edit a live site, or recertify the original 135 documents. The 40 cards are source-linked implementation guides, not completed deployments. 311 312The offline tests inspect this package's records, examples, and limited readiness rules. They do not run live Rich Results tests, search-engine indexing tests, real browser journeys, private-source permissions, or an external independent audit. Those remain requirements for a real implementation. 313 314 31518. NAMED RESEARCH SYSTEMS AND ALGORITHMS TO KNOW 316------------------------------------------------ 317These names belong in the library because they explain several real graph-based approaches that marketing language often blends together. They are a methods appendix, not five new disclosed ranking factors. Map them into the appropriate Gxx views rather than adding an agent, endpoint, or public score for every name. 318 319Knowledge Vault — probabilistic knowledge fusion. 320The 2014 Google Research paper combines extracted web information with prior knowledge and models uncertainty in the fused facts. This is a useful historical basis for teaching extraction, reconciliation, confidence calibration, and source fusion. It is not the same claim as "my site has been entered in Knowledge Vault." [S46] 321Library use: connect G04 entity resolution, G09 document/entity mappings, G10 provenance, and G30 contradictions. Keep uncertain extractions out of approved public facts. Calibrated probabilities in a research model are different from an assistant inventing a confidence percentage. 322 323Knowledge-Based Trust (KBT) — fact-based source trust research. 324The 2015 paper investigates estimating source trustworthiness from extracted facts while separating extraction mistakes from errors in the source itself. [S45] 325Library use: teach why evidence quality and the reliability of extraction must both be examined. A bad parser can make a correct source look inconsistent; a frequently repeated assertion can still be wrong. KBT is not interchangeable with E-E-A-T, link-based trust, or a consumer-visible website score. Do not claim a modern engine uses this exact paper without separate deployment evidence. 326 327TrustRank — seed-guided link analysis for spam detection. 328The 2004 paper uses a small expert-reviewed seed set and the web's link structure to identify other pages likely to be reputable. The reviewed paper is by researchers affiliated with Stanford and Yahoo, and its experiments are historical. [S49] 329Library use: attach this method to G14 external link analysis and an explicitly labeled research lesson on trust propagation. Explain seed dependence and probabilistic assumptions. Do not substitute "all government sites" or "all university sites" for a demonstrated seed set, and do not translate proximity into a guaranteed modern ranking benefit. The paper is not evidence that the original TrustRank algorithm currently governs Google Search. 330 331HITS — hubs and authorities. 332HITS distinguishes hub scores from authority scores for a supplied linked graph; the NetworkX documentation exposes an implementation. [S47] 333Library use: compare it with PageRank in a controlled G13/G14 lesson. Show that two algorithms applied to the same small graph answer different mathematical questions. Neither supplies Google's hidden scores. A node labeled "authority" by an algorithm has not acquired a real-world credential or permission to make unsupported claims. 334 335Query–entity click graphs. 336Microsoft Research's 2011 Jigs and Lures work models associations between queries and typed entities using click-graph information. [S48] 337Library use: enrich G21 query relevance and G26 measurement teaching with a distinction between a query-to-result appearance and an observed click association. Only use actually available, authorized data. Do not invent click logs from rankings or infer a click from a displayed citation. Historical experimental gains are not a promised improvement on another business's site. 338 339A compact comparison: 340 Knowledge graph: entities and semantic relationships. 341 Web-link graph: pages and hyperlinks. 342 Click graph: observed query/item or user/item interactions. 343 Trust-propagation model: assumptions and labels propagated across a network. 344 Probabilistic knowledge fusion: combining uncertain extracted assertions. 345 E-E-A-T evidence view: this library's map from claims to real support. 346 SERP observation view: this library's dated record of displayed results. 347 Vector-neighbor graph: proximity under an embedding representation. 348 349Do not transfer a score across these categories. A high local hub score, an extracted-fact probability, a vector similarity, a citation count, and an editorial claim of expertise are not measurements of the same thing. Every algorithm lesson must identify its graph definition, data scope, parameters, assumptions, evaluation set, and deployment status. 350 351 352============================================================================== 353 354GRAPH CATALOG INDEX 355=================== 356G01 Personal identity and profile graph [P0; standards-backed library view] 357G02 Organization, business, and brand graph [P0; standards-backed library view] 358G03 Cross-domain operating and ownership graph [P0; library analytical view] 359G04 Entity resolution and reconciliation graph [P0; library analytical view] 360G05 Local business, place, and service-area graph [P1_IF_APPLICABLE; standards-backed library view] 361G06 Product, offer, merchant, and inventory graph [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; standards-backed library view] 362G07 Authorship and editorial contribution graph [P0; standards-backed library view] 363G08 Topic, ontology, and taxonomy graph [P1; standards-backed library view] 364G09 Document, passage, and entity graph [P1; library analytical view] 365G10 Claim, evidence, and provenance graph [P0; standards-backed library view] 366G11 E-E-A-T evidence graph [P1; custom library evidence view; not a Google graph specification] 367G12 Reputation, review, and corroboration graph [P1; library analytical view] 368G13 Internal link and navigation graph [P0; library analytical view of documented web links] 369G14 External web-link graph [P1; documented link-analysis concept; local reconstruction] 370G15 Citation, co-citation, and bibliographic-coupling graph [P2; research/analysis view] 371G16 Canonical and duplicate-document graph [P0; library view of documented URL policy] 372G17 Redirect and migration graph [P1_IF_APPLICABLE; library engineering view] 373G18 Hreflang and locale-alternative graph [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; library view of documented localization signals] 374G19 Crawl, rendering, and resource-dependency graph [P0; library engineering view] 375G20 Structured-data consistency graph [P0; serialization/validation view] 376G21 Query, intent, and page-relevance graph [P1; library analytical view] 377G22 SERP observation and competitor-overlap graph [P1; custom observational view; not an official SERP graph] 378G23 Question, task, and query-fan-out map [P1; custom planning/observation view] 379G24 Entity-mention and co-occurrence graph [P2; library analytical view] 380G25 AI answer, grounding, and citation graph [P1; custom observation view of documented report data] 381G26 Search-to-lead and customer-journey graph [P1; custom measurement view] 382G27 GraphRAG and owned-corpus retrieval graph [P2; documented method with library-specific adaptation] 383G28 Embedding-similarity and nearest-neighbor graph [P2; published algorithmic method] 384G29 Temporal, version, and supersession graph [P2; library governance view] 385G30 Contradiction, uncertainty, and dispute graph [P2; library governance view] 386G31 Source-dependency and change-impact graph [P2; library governance view] 387G32 Instruction, capability, and workflow dependency graph [P1; private library operating design] 388G33 Requirement, test, evidence, and acceptance graph [P0; private library operating design] 389G34 Permissions, consent, and disclosure graph [P0; policy-description and private governance view] 390G35 Multimedia, transcript, and rights graph [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; standards-informed library view] 391G36 Open Graph social-preview metadata [P1; documented protocol; naming distinction] 392G37 Social, professional, and interaction graphs [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; documented graph family; library analysis must be scoped] 393G38 Scholarly and research graph [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; documented public-data graph family] 394G39 Event, venue, organizer, and time graph [P3_IF_APPLICABLE; standards-backed library view] 395G40 Learning prerequisite and curriculum graph [P1; custom teaching design] 396 397============================================================================== 398 39940 GRAPH REFERENCE CARDS 400======================== 401 402------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 403 404# G01 — Personal identity and profile graph 405 406Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 407Reviewed: 2026-09-12 408Nature: standards-backed library view 409Priority: P0 410Accountability: R11, R14, R13 411 412## Question 413Which person is this, and which records identify that same person? 414 415## Nodes 416Person; ProfilePage; Verified profile; Creative work 417 418## Relationship sketch 419- profile.mainEntity → person 420- work.author → person 421- person.sameAs → exact identity reference 422 423## Evidence inputs 424Owner-approved public name, actual profile records, bylines, and relationship evidence. 425 426## Implementation 427Allocate one stable person identifier. Keep the person separate from biography documents, user accounts, businesses, and people with similar names. Leave unknown properties unset. 428 429## Acceptance checks 430- Person and biography page have different identifiers 431- Identity links are reviewed for an exact match 432- No unverified credential is published 433 434## Do not infer 435A descriptive biography, account handle, or confident name match does not prove identity. 436 437## Publication boundary 438Approved identity facts may be public; supporting sensitive records stay private. 439 440## Source basis 441S03, S04, S05. See Research/sources.json. 442Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 443 444 445------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 446 447# G02 — Organization, business, and brand graph 448 449Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 450Reviewed: 2026-09-12 451Nature: standards-backed library view 452Priority: P0 453Accountability: R11, R14, R18 454 455## Question 456Which organization operates a service, and which brands does it actually use? 457 458## Nodes 459Organization; Brand; WebSite; Service 460 461## Relationship sketch 462- organization.brand → brand 463- website.publisher → organization 464- service.provider → organization 465 466## Evidence inputs 467Owner-confirmed operating structure, real trading names, visible service pages, and verified legal details when needed. 468 469## Implementation 470Model organizations, brands, domains, and services separately. Choose the smallest accurate model; do not create a legal entity for each domain or force several businesses into one. 471 472## Acceptance checks 473- Every node has an explicit type and verified meaning 474- Public names match approved visible facts 475- Service provider is not confused with its website 476 477## Do not infer 478An owned domain is not automatically an organization, legal name, or separate local office. 479 480## Publication boundary 481Publish approved organization/brand/service facts, not private ownership documents. 482 483## Source basis 484S02, S06, S07. See Research/sources.json. 485Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 486 487 488------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 489 490# G03 — Cross-domain operating and ownership graph 491 492Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 493Reviewed: 2026-09-12 494Nature: library analytical view 495Priority: P0 496Accountability: R11, R14, R24 497 498## Question 499How are the owner, organizations, brands, websites, and publications related? 500 501## Nodes 502Person; Organization; Brand; Domain; Publication 503 504## Relationship sketch 505- verified ownership assertion → evidence 506- website → operating organization 507- publication → publisher 508 509## Evidence inputs 510Explicit ownership/operating statements, domain control evidence where authorized, and approved publisher assignments. 511 512## Implementation 513Keep private ownership assertions as qualified claims; map only supported relationships into public vocabulary. Domain control, employment, founding, and publishing are different predicates. 514 515## Acceptance checks 516- No sameAs links connect merely affiliated businesses 517- Every ownership or founder assertion has evidence 518- The person and all website IDs remain distinct 519 520## Do not infer 521Common ownership is not identity equivalence, editorial independence, or proof of founding. 522 523## Publication boundary 524Relationship summary may be public; contracts and control records normally remain private. 525 526## Source basis 527S02, S04, S07. See Research/sources.json. 528Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 529 530 531------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 532 533# G04 — Entity resolution and reconciliation graph 534 535Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 536Reviewed: 2026-09-12 537Nature: library analytical view 538Priority: P0 539Accountability: R11, R14, R21 540 541## Question 542Which mentions or imported records refer to the same entity? 543 544## Nodes 545Mention; Candidate entity; Identifier; Source record; Resolution decision 546 547## Relationship sketch 548- mention → candidate 549- candidate → supporting identifier 550- decision → accepted/rejected match 551 552## Evidence inputs 553Names, identifiers, profile URLs, contextual attributes, conflicts, and reviewer decisions. 554 555## Implementation 556Generate candidates without merging them. Require corroboration, keep rejected alternatives and confidence rationale, and support reversible merges. Give human reviewers ambiguous cases. 557 558## Acceptance checks 559- Known same-name people remain separate in negative tests 560- Reversing a merge restores source associations 561- All accepted matches retain provenance 562 563## Do not infer 564Vector similarity or identical names are not sufficient evidence of identity. 565 566## Publication boundary 567Private resolution records; only approved identity references become public. 568 569## Source basis 570S04, S10, S12. See Research/sources.json. 571Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 572 573 574------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 575 576# G05 — Local business, place, and service-area graph 577 578Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 579Reviewed: 2026-09-12 580Nature: standards-backed library view 581Priority: P1_IF_APPLICABLE 582Accountability: R18, R11, R14, R20 583 584## Question 585Which real business is at a location, and where does it provide service? 586 587## Nodes 588Organization; LocalBusiness; Place; Address; Service area; Profile 589 590## Relationship sketch 591- branch → parent organization 592- business → actual place 593- service → area served 594 595## Evidence inputs 596Approved location facts, eligible business profiles, hours, real service coverage, and privacy decisions. 597 598## Implementation 599Distinguish headquarters, branches, customer-facing premises, mailing addresses, and service areas. Do not derive a physical office from a city page or a travel radius. 600 601## Acceptance checks 602- Each published physical location is real 603- Service-area claims do not create fictional branches 604- Sensitive home-address publication is explicitly reviewed 605 606## Do not infer 607One page for each town is not evidence of one office in each town. 608 609## Publication boundary 610Public business facts only; avoid unnecessary personal location information. 611 612## Source basis 613S07, S28. See Research/sources.json. 614Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 615 616 617------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 618 619# G06 — Product, offer, merchant, and inventory graph 620 621Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 622Reviewed: 2026-09-12 623Nature: standards-backed library view 624Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE 625Accountability: R11, R03, R14, R16 626 627## Question 628What is sold, by whom, with which current offer and availability? 629 630## Nodes 631Product; Variant; Offer; Merchant; Inventory observation 632 633## Relationship sketch 634- offer → item 635- offer → seller 636- inventory observation → offer/version 637 638## Evidence inputs 639Actual catalog, identifiers, landing pages, feeds, dated price and stock records. 640 641## Implementation 642Separate an enduring product identity from a seller-specific, time-sensitive offer. Reconcile pages and feeds. Only use variant relationships supported by the actual catalog. 643 644## Acceptance checks 645- Offer currency and price agree with the reviewed source 646- Availability has an observation time 647- Variants are not merged solely because names resemble each other 648 649## Do not infer 650Your catalog graph is not direct control of Google Shopping Graph. 651 652## Publication boundary 653Approved catalog facts public; supplier and customer records private. 654 655## Source basis 656S30, S31. See Research/sources.json. 657Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 658 659 660------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 661 662# G07 — Authorship and editorial contribution graph 663 664Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 665Reviewed: 2026-09-12 666Nature: standards-backed library view 667Priority: P0 668Accountability: R13, R11, R14 669 670## Question 671Who actually authored, reviewed, edited, or published this work? 672 673## Nodes 674Person; Work; Revision; Contribution; Publisher 675 676## Relationship sketch 677- work.author → person 678- revision → actual reviewer 679- work.publisher → organization 680 681## Evidence inputs 682Actual contribution records, approved bylines, editorial review, revision history. 683 684## Implementation 685Track contributions per work/version rather than giving every page the same impressive author. Separate authorship, review, publishing, and tool assistance. 686 687## Acceptance checks 688- Byline agrees with actual contribution 689- Reviewer records identify the reviewed version 690- An AI role prompt is not represented as a staff member 691 692## Do not infer 693A reviewer credit is not proof that every claim or future revision was reviewed. 694 695## Publication boundary 696Approved bylines and methodology may be public; draft review logs private. 697 698## Source basis 699S03, S05, S08. See Research/sources.json. 700Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 701 702 703------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 704 705# G08 — Topic, ontology, and taxonomy graph 706 707Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 708Reviewed: 2026-09-12 709Nature: standards-backed library view 710Priority: P1 711Accountability: R10, R09, R11, R13 712 713## Question 714Which concepts exist, and how do their meanings and scopes relate? 715 716## Nodes 717Concept; Preferred label; Alternative label; Concept scheme 718 719## Relationship sketch 720- concept → broader/narrower concept 721- concept → related concept 722- label → concept 723 724## Evidence inputs 725Domain definitions, terminology decisions, source-backed distinctions, and reader questions. 726 727## Implementation 728Use controlled concepts to connect documents without making each term a public page. Record synonyms separately from broader concepts; avoid over-specific taxonomies that users cannot navigate. 729 730## Acceptance checks 731- Broader-than relationships are not mistaken for same-identity links 732- Ambiguous abbreviations have definitions 733- Concept revisions preserve stable identifiers 734 735## Do not infer 736A dense taxonomy does not certify topical authority or completeness of expertise. 737 738## Publication boundary 739A helpful subset may be published; internal editorial notes stay private. 740 741## Source basis 742S15, S44. See Research/sources.json. 743Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 744 745 746------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 747 748# G09 — Document, passage, and entity graph 749 750Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 751Reviewed: 2026-09-12 752Nature: library analytical view 753Priority: P1 754Accountability: R10, R11, R13 755 756## Question 757Which part of which document describes or supports an entity or concept? 758 759## Nodes 760Document; Version; Section; Passage; Entity; Concept 761 762## Relationship sketch 763- passage → document version 764- passage → mentions entity 765- section → concerns concept 766 767## Evidence inputs 768Original text, offsets or section locators, content hashes, extraction method, and source rights. 769 770## Implementation 771Preserve document and section boundaries when indexing. Treat mentions as mentions, not verified assertions; keep a route from each retrieved passage back to the actual source. 772 773## Acceptance checks 774- Every passage resolves to an exact source version 775- Quoted context can be reconstructed 776- Mention extraction does not silently assert facts 777 778## Do not infer 779Entity mention, aboutness, evidence support, and endorsement are different relationships. 780 781## Publication boundary 782Public passages follow source rights; private corpus records remain private. 783 784## Source basis 785S12, S14, S25. See Research/sources.json. 786Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 787 788 789------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 790 791# G10 — Claim, evidence, and provenance graph 792 793Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 794Reviewed: 2026-09-12 795Nature: standards-backed library view 796Priority: P0 797Accountability: R14, R11, R20 798 799## Question 800What supports a particular assertion, and where did that support originate? 801 802## Nodes 803Claim; Evidence; Source version; Extraction activity; Reviewer 804 805## Relationship sketch 806- claim → supported/contradicted by evidence 807- evidence → source version 808- derived artifact → source activity 809 810## Evidence inputs 811Exact assertion scope, original source locator, observation date, evidence class, and review decision. 812 813## Implementation 814Make claims first-class records. Preserve source chains and ownership/independence labels. A summary derived from a source is not a new independent source. 815 816## Acceptance checks 817- Every published material assertion has a source or labeled basis 818- Conflicting evidence remains attached 819- Unsupported assertions cannot pass the publication-readiness check 820 821## Do not infer 822Five copies of the same claim do not constitute five independent confirmations. 823 824## Publication boundary 825Publish safe citations, not secrets, client messages, or restricted originals. 826 827## Source basis 828S14, S16. See Research/sources.json. 829Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 830 831 832------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 833 834# G11 — E-E-A-T evidence graph 835 836Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 837Reviewed: 2026-09-12 838Nature: custom library evidence view; not a Google graph specification 839Priority: P1 840Accountability: R14, R13, R11, R19 841 842## Question 843What real evidence demonstrates experience, expertise, attribution, and trust for this claim? 844 845## Nodes 846Person; Work performed; Evidence; Published work; Independent mention; Correction 847 848## Relationship sketch 849- work performed → evidence 850- claim → bounded experience basis 851- mention → source and independence class 852 853## Evidence inputs 854Actual work artifacts, methods, relevant verified qualifications, corrections, disclosures, and earned recognition. 855 856## Implementation 857Build an evidence map for specific claims and subjects. Use it to expose missing support and accurate authorship, not to manufacture a universal authority score. 858 859## Acceptance checks 860- Experience claims point to real work or are omitted 861- Owned/paid/earned sources stay distinguished 862- No public Google E-E-A-T number is invented 863 864## Do not infer 865This is an internal teaching and audit model; Google does not document it as a standalone ranking system. 866 867## Publication boundary 868Publish substantiated selected evidence with permission; private engagement records remain private. 869 870## Source basis 871S01, S08, S43. See Research/sources.json. 872Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 873 874 875------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 876 877# G12 — Reputation, review, and corroboration graph 878 879Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 880Reviewed: 2026-09-12 881Nature: library analytical view 882Priority: P1 883Accountability: R19, R14, R11, R18 884 885## Question 886Who said what about which entity, with what provenance and independence? 887 888## Nodes 889Reviewer; Review; Reviewed entity; Publisher; Disclosure; Source owner 890 891## Relationship sketch 892- review → exact subject 893- statement → publisher 894- publisher → ownership/disclosure record 895 896## Evidence inputs 897Actual reviews and dates, subject matching, publication rights, disclosed sponsorship, source lineage. 898 899## Implementation 900Preserve review context and scales. Record whether a source is owned, paid, syndicated, or independently earned; never infer independence from different domain names alone. 901 902## Acceptance checks 903- Review subject is not confused with another product/business 904- Syndicated copies share a provenance origin 905- Feature eligibility is checked separately from review authenticity 906 907## Do not infer 908Authentic self-hosted testimonials do not automatically qualify for LocalBusiness/Organization review stars. 909 910## Publication boundary 911Approved review evidence public; unnecessary reviewer data excluded. 912 913## Source basis 914S29, S14, S43. See Research/sources.json. 915Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 916 917 918------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 919 920# G13 — Internal link and navigation graph 921 922Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 923Reviewed: 2026-09-12 924Nature: library analytical view of documented web links 925Priority: P0 926Accountability: R08, R09, R04 927 928## Question 929Can visitors and crawlers find the intended pages through useful links? 930 931## Nodes 932Page; Link; Anchor; Navigation context 933 934## Relationship sketch 935- page → linked page 936- link → anchor and location 937 938## Evidence inputs 939Authorized crawl, initial/rendered HTML as relevant, intended navigation, canonical route list. 940 941## Implementation 942Inspect reachable components and important pages with no incoming links. Evaluate navigational usefulness alongside graph metrics. Keep page purpose and user journeys ahead of arbitrary link quotas. 943 944## Acceptance checks 945- Important public pages are reachable from intended entry points 946- Actual href targets work 947- Any reported orphan definition and crawl scope are explicit 948 949## Do not infer 950A crawl of only part of a site cannot prove whole-site orphan status. 951 952## Publication boundary 953Navigation is public; diagnostic reports normally private. 954 955## Source basis 956S19, S41. See Research/sources.json. 957Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 958 959 960------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 961 962# G14 — External web-link graph 963 964Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 965Reviewed: 2026-09-12 966Nature: documented link-analysis concept; local reconstruction 967Priority: P1 968Accountability: R19, R08, R10 969 970## Question 971Which external pages link to your content, and what does the observed network show? 972 973## Nodes 974External page; Internal page; Domain; Observed hyperlink 975 976## Relationship sketch 977- source page → target page 978 979## Evidence inputs 980Actual link observations, collection source, timestamps, anchor and link attributes, coverage limitations. 981 982## Implementation 983Analyze observed linking relationships and ownership clusters. Mark third-party crawl coverage as partial. Distinguish network measurements from the search engine's internal scoring. 984 985## Acceptance checks 986- Links are checked at their source when practical 987- Collection coverage is documented 988- Local metrics are labeled as locally computed 989 990## Do not infer 991NetworkX PageRank, third-party domain scores, and Google ranking values are not interchangeable. 992 993## Publication boundary 994Public links; private outreach and analysis records. 995 996## Source basis 997S09, S39, S43. See Research/sources.json. 998Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 999 1000 1001------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1002 1003# G15 — Citation, co-citation, and bibliographic-coupling graph 1004 1005Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1006Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1007Nature: research/analysis view 1008Priority: P2 1009Accountability: R10, R14, R11 1010 1011## Question 1012Which works cite which sources, and which share citation neighborhoods? 1013 1014## Nodes 1015Work; Cited source; Citation occurrence 1016 1017## Relationship sketch 1018- work → cited source 1019- two works → shared reference projection 1020- two sources → jointly cited projection 1021 1022## Evidence inputs 1023Resolved citations, source locators, document versions, and duplication provenance. 1024 1025## Implementation 1026Maintain the directed citation graph first. Co-citation connects items cited together; bibliographic coupling connects works sharing references. Label derived edges and formulas, not endorsements. 1027 1028## Acceptance checks 1029- Derived projections can be recomputed from citation records 1030- Copied source lists do not count as independent evidence 1031- A citation is inspected before treating it as support 1032 1033## Do not infer 1034Being cited together does not imply identity, agreement, quality, or ranking equivalence. 1035 1036## Publication boundary 1037Respect source licenses; publish only permitted citation data. 1038 1039## Source basis 1040S14, S37, S40. See Research/sources.json. 1041Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1042 1043 1044------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1045 1046# G16 — Canonical and duplicate-document graph 1047 1048Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1049Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1050Nature: library view of documented URL policy 1051Priority: P0 1052Accountability: R08, R09, R11 1053 1054## Question 1055Which URLs describe duplicate documents, and what canonical signals are observed? 1056 1057## Nodes 1058URL; Document version; Declared canonical; Observed engine canonical 1059 1060## Relationship sketch 1061- URL → declared canonical 1062- inspection observation → selected canonical 1063- document → duplicate candidate 1064 1065## Evidence inputs 1066Page headers/HTML, sitemaps, redirect signals, actual engine inspection when available. 1067 1068## Implementation 1069Store publisher-declared and engine-observed canonicals separately. Review cross-domain canonical proposals for real document duplication; do not canonicalize distinct services merely to connect brands. 1070 1071## Acceptance checks 1072- Each observation distinguishes intent from engine behavior 1073- Canonical targets are valid intended documents 1074- Conflicting page/header signals are reported 1075 1076## Do not infer 1077Canonicalizing a page does not merge people or organizations. 1078 1079## Publication boundary 1080Page canonical signals public; inspection records private. 1081 1082## Source basis 1083S17, S08. See Research/sources.json. 1084Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1085 1086 1087------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1088 1089# G17 — Redirect and migration graph 1090 1091Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1092Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1093Nature: library engineering view 1094Priority: P1_IF_APPLICABLE 1095Accountability: R08, R01, R25, R26 1096 1097## Question 1098What happens to each old URL, and is the migration reversible? 1099 1100## Nodes 1101Old URL; Hop; Destination; Release; Rollback mapping 1102 1103## Relationship sketch 1104- old URL → redirect hop 1105- final URL → intended replacement 1106- mapping → release version 1107 1108## Evidence inputs 1109Authorized redirect map, actual HTTP observations, content equivalence decisions, backup mapping. 1110 1111## Implementation 1112Check loops, long chains, deleted destinations, and mismatched content. Treat redirect changes as authorized production changes with rollback; do not silently replace all missing pages with the homepage. 1113 1114## Acceptance checks 1115- No loop in approved redirect paths 1116- Every moved important URL has a reviewed outcome 1117- Rollback restores the previous mapping 1118 1119## Do not infer 1120An HTTP redirect does not prove the destination inherited a particular ranking. 1121 1122## Publication boundary 1123Redirect behavior public; migration control records private. 1124 1125## Source basis 1126S17, S41. See Research/sources.json. 1127Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1128 1129 1130------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1131 1132# G18 — Hreflang and locale-alternative graph 1133 1134Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1135Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1136Nature: library view of documented localization signals 1137Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE 1138Accountability: R08, R09, R13 1139 1140## Question 1141Which localized documents are alternatives for the same user task? 1142 1143## Nodes 1144Localized page; Language; Region; Alternate group 1145 1146## Relationship sketch 1147- page → locale 1148- page → alternate page 1149 1150## Evidence inputs 1151Actual translated/localized pages and annotations, canonical policy, language/region intent. 1152 1153## Implementation 1154Validate reciprocal alternative sets under the current implementation method. Do not confuse localization with location claims or populate a graph using untranslated duplicate pages. 1155 1156## Acceptance checks 1157- Alternate URLs resolve as intended 1158- Annotation sets are consistent and reciprocal where required 1159- Language/region intent matches actual content 1160 1161## Do not infer 1162An alternate-language page is not a different business entity. 1163 1164## Publication boundary 1165Appropriate locale annotations public. 1166 1167## Source basis 1168S18, S17. See Research/sources.json. 1169Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1170 1171 1172------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1173 1174# G19 — Crawl, rendering, and resource-dependency graph 1175 1176Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1177Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1178Nature: library engineering view 1179Priority: P0 1180Accountability: R04, R08, R06, R20 1181 1182## Question 1183What must load for the user and each tested consumer to observe the real content? 1184 1185## Nodes 1186URL; HTML; Script; Stylesheet; Image; Rendered state; Consumer observation 1187 1188## Relationship sketch 1189- page → required resource 1190- render observation → observed content 1191- consumer → access result 1192 1193## Evidence inputs 1194Initial responses, browser network captures, blocked-resource observations, versioned tests. 1195 1196## Implementation 1197Trace critical content, metadata, and links to dependencies. Test optional-script failure and record differences between browser and crawler observations; avoid pretending all consumers render identically. 1198 1199## Acceptance checks 1200- Essential content is observed under the agreed delivery contract 1201- Blocked resources have documented impact 1202- Actual crawler evidence is separated from a spoofed user-agent test 1203 1204## Do not infer 1205User-agent string selection does not authenticate a crawler or reproduce its complete behavior. 1206 1207## Publication boundary 1208Public assets; private traces redacted. 1209 1210## Source basis 1211S20, S27. See Research/sources.json. 1212Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1213 1214 1215------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1216 1217# G20 — Structured-data consistency graph 1218 1219Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1220Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1221Nature: serialization/validation view 1222Priority: P0 1223Accountability: R11, R04, R14, R21 1224 1225## Question 1226Do all public representations describe the same approved entities and facts? 1227 1228## Nodes 1229Entity registry; Page; JSON-LD node; Feed record; Validation finding 1230 1231## Relationship sketch 1232- page representation → entity ID 1233- assertion → approved claim 1234- finding → affected representation 1235 1236## Evidence inputs 1237Approved entity registry, actual page markup, visible content, feed versions, validation output. 1238 1239## Implementation 1240Generate public subsets from a reviewed source of truth. Detect conflicting identifiers and facts across templates. Run syntax, vocabulary, graph, content, and feature checks separately. 1241 1242## Acceptance checks 1243- Public references resolve to intended entity records 1244- No template invents a second identity 1245- Visible content and JSON-LD agree on material facts 1246 1247## Do not infer 1248A large @graph array is not proof of completeness, authority, or provider ingestion. 1249 1250## Publication boundary 1251Only approved public projections; private full graph stays private. 1252 1253## Source basis 1254S13, S16, S08. See Research/sources.json. 1255Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1256 1257 1258------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1259 1260# G21 — Query, intent, and page-relevance graph 1261 1262Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1263Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1264Nature: library analytical view 1265Priority: P1 1266Accountability: R10, R23, R13, R16 1267 1268## Question 1269Which pages answer which actual reader questions and tasks? 1270 1271## Nodes 1272Query; Task; Intent hypothesis; Page; Evidence of demand 1273 1274## Relationship sketch 1275- query → task hypothesis 1276- task → helpful page 1277- query → observed page result 1278 1279## Evidence inputs 1280Actual inquiries, permitted search-report data, editorial judgments, and annotated evaluation sets. 1281 1282## Implementation 1283Separate measured queries from brainstorming. Evaluate whether a page answers the task instead of merely sharing words. Keep ambiguous intents explicit rather than forcing one interpretation. 1284 1285## Acceptance checks 1286- Observed and hypothetical demand are labeled 1287- Page-task relevance is reviewed against content 1288- Internal retrieval tests include relevant and irrelevant pages 1289 1290## Do not infer 1291Your intent taxonomy is not a disclosure of an engine's hidden query representation. 1292 1293## Publication boundary 1294Useful user-facing content public; query logs privacy-reviewed. 1295 1296## Source basis 1297S09, S40. See Research/sources.json. 1298Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1299 1300 1301------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1302 1303# G22 — SERP observation and competitor-overlap graph 1304 1305Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1306Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1307Nature: custom observational view; not an official SERP graph 1308Priority: P1 1309Accountability: R10, R16, R08 1310 1311## Question 1312What appeared for a specified query under specified conditions? 1313 1314## Nodes 1315Query; SERP snapshot; Result occurrence; URL; Domain; Result feature 1316 1317## Relationship sketch 1318- snapshot → query/context 1319- snapshot → occurrence 1320- occurrence → URL and feature 1321 1322## Evidence inputs 1323Permitted search observations or licensed data, exact collection context, time, URL and feature details. 1324 1325## Implementation 1326Model each appearance as an occurrence, not a timeless edge. Distinguish organic results, ads, local results, and AI citations. Compare URL-set overlaps only within documented sampling. 1327 1328## Acceptance checks 1329- Every result belongs to a dated snapshot 1330- Position definition and feature type are retained 1331- Unavailable result data is not represented as zero visibility 1332 1333## Do not infer 1334Ranking for one query does not make a competitor's schema, word count, or backlink pattern causal. 1335 1336## Publication boundary 1337Aggregate research may be public; raw collected data obeys permissions. 1338 1339## Source basis 1340S09, S40. See Research/sources.json. 1341Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1342 1343 1344------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1345 1346# G23 — Question, task, and query-fan-out map 1347 1348Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1349Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1350Nature: custom planning/observation view 1351Priority: P1 1352Accountability: R10, R12, R13 1353 1354## Question 1355What related questions must be answered for the user's task? 1356 1357## Nodes 1358Task; Question; Subquestion; Observed grounding phrase; Hypothesized expansion 1359 1360## Relationship sketch 1361- task → subquestion 1362- question → supporting page 1363- observed phrase → evidence record 1364 1365## Evidence inputs 1366User research, actual questions, provider-exposed phrases when available, separate model-generated suggestions. 1367 1368## Implementation 1369Use related questions to improve coverage without producing a page for every paraphrase. Tag suggestions as hypotheses, and never label generated subquestions as actual hidden provider fan-out. 1370 1371## Acceptance checks 1372- Observed and hypothesized expansions remain separate 1373- Each proposed section serves a real task 1374- Redundant pages are not generated just to fill graph nodes 1375 1376## Do not infer 1377Public descriptions of query fan-out do not reveal the exact query tree for a particular answer. 1378 1379## Publication boundary 1380Helpful answers public; research/observation records private. 1381 1382## Source basis 1383S21, S22, S43. See Research/sources.json. 1384Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1385 1386 1387------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1388 1389# G24 — Entity-mention and co-occurrence graph 1390 1391Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1392Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1393Nature: library analytical view 1394Priority: P2 1395Accountability: R10, R11, R14 1396 1397## Question 1398Where are entities mentioned together, and in what context? 1399 1400## Nodes 1401Mention; Passage; Entity candidate; Source; Co-occurrence projection 1402 1403## Relationship sketch 1404- passage → mentions candidate 1405- projection → shared passage/source 1406 1407## Evidence inputs 1408Actual text spans, entity-resolution decisions, source lineage, language and time. 1409 1410## Implementation 1411Preserve sentiment and relationship context when known; a criticism and a recommendation are not equivalent. Use co-occurrence to find inspection candidates, not to auto-create sameAs or endorsements. 1412 1413## Acceptance checks 1414- Every mention maps to a source span 1415- False name matches are tested 1416- Derived associations are labeled and reversible 1417 1418## Do not infer 1419Co-occurrence does not establish identity, expertise, recommendation, or causation. 1420 1421## Publication boundary 1422Public-source analysis only as permitted; minimize personal data. 1423 1424## Source basis 1425S12, S14, S40. See Research/sources.json. 1426Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1427 1428 1429------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1430 1431# G25 — AI answer, grounding, and citation graph 1432 1433Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1434Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1435Nature: custom observation view of documented report data 1436Priority: P1 1437Accountability: R12, R16, R14 1438 1439## Question 1440Which answer or report observation cites which source, and for what support? 1441 1442## Nodes 1443Answer observation; Grounding phrase; Citation occurrence; Page; Claim; Provider 1444 1445## Relationship sketch 1446- observation → source citation 1447- grounding phrase → reported page 1448- citation → reviewed support relation 1449 1450## Evidence inputs 1451Actual cited URLs, provider report/export definitions, observation context, original answer when available. 1452 1453## Implementation 1454Distinguish observed answers from aggregated reports and grounding phrases from original prompts. Inspect source support rather than assuming a citation validates all nearby text. 1455 1456## Acceptance checks 1457- Every count has a denominator and coverage window 1458- Actual prompts are not invented from grounding phrases 1459- Citation observations are separate from referral sessions and leads 1460 1461## Do not infer 1462Citation count is not a public authority metric or proof of customers acquired. 1463 1464## Publication boundary 1465Sanitized aggregates may be public; user prompts and private reports protected. 1466 1467## Source basis 1468S22, S23, S21. See Research/sources.json. 1469Sources support the primitives or named technology. The organization, labels, actions, and acceptance contracts in this catalog are this library's design, not claimed provider requirements. 1470 1471 1472------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1473 1474# G26 — Search-to-lead and customer-journey graph 1475 1476Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed 1477Reviewed: 2026-09-12 1478Nature: custom measurement view 1479Priority: P1 1480Accountability: R16, R03, R12, R20 1481 1482## Question 1483Which observed discovery events connect to actual business outcomes? 1484 1485## Nodes 1486Referral; Session; Event; Durable inquiry; Qualified lead; Outcome 1487 1488## Relationship sketch 1489- permitted session → observed event 1490- inquiry → qualification decision 1491- outcome → attributed evidence 1492 1493## Evidence inputs 1494Authorized analytics and backend events, consent-aware identifiers, actual qualification and outcome records. 1495 1496## Implementation 1497Start from accurate business-state transitions. Preserve attribution uncertainty, unknown origin, and missing identifiers; do not stitch anonymous people across contexts without authority. 1498 1499## Acceptance checks 1500- Submit success does not substitute for durable acceptance