ThatAIguyA world of ideas

THE CONSCIOUSNESS ATLAS
Read. Experiment. Follow the evidence.

ConsciousnessLearn · Explore · Joseph Anady

Janady13/thatstupidcomputer / private/standards/Graph-Expansion.txt · Lines 1501–2559

Source identity, revision, and recovered contents.

GitHub sourceSource text recovered

A continuation of Janady13/thatstupidcomputer / private/standards/Graph-Expansion.txt. The complete source identity, every recorded occurrence, and linked equations are on its first page.

Source transcript · continued

Download complete source text ↓2,559 lines · 114.7 KB
- Lead definitions are explicit - Unknown attribution remains unknown rather than allocated to AI ## Do not infer A crawler request, indexed page, citation, click, and sale are different observations. ## Publication boundary Private by default; aggregate only with appropriate review. ## Source basis S22, S14, S42. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G27 — GraphRAG and owned-corpus retrieval graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: documented method with library-specific adaptation Priority: P2 Accountability: R10, R11, R12, R20, R21 ## Question Can an assistant retrieve connected facts and their original supporting passages? ## Nodes Entity; Relationship candidate; Text unit; Community; Summary; Source version ## Relationship sketch - entity → original text - community → member entity - summary → supporting records ## Evidence inputs Authorized corpus, extraction outputs, source text, evaluation set, permitted access labels. ## Implementation Pilot graph-assisted retrieval beside lexical and vector baselines. Treat extracted edges and generated summaries as candidates until reviewed; return original evidence and scope limitations. ## Acceptance checks - Retrieved claims link back to original passages - Privacy filtering happens before retrieval output - Held-out evaluation compares quality, latency, and cost ## Do not infer Installing GraphRAG does not make public search engines ingest your graph or train their models. ## Publication boundary Private retrieval by default; only separately approved exports public. ## Source basis S24, S25. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G28 — Embedding-similarity and nearest-neighbor graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: published algorithmic method Priority: P2 Accountability: R10, R21 ## Question Which vectors are approximately close under a specified representation and metric? ## Nodes Vector; Text/entity record; Model version; Neighbor relation ## Relationship sketch - vector → source record - vector → approximate neighbor ## Evidence inputs Actual embedding model/version, dimension, similarity metric, indexed corpus, measured retrieval results. ## Implementation Keep an ANN index such as HNSW conceptually separate from the semantic fact graph. Record model changes and compare candidate retrieval against labeled relevant passages. ## Acceptance checks - Embedding/version metadata is recorded - Approximate retrieval is evaluated on task examples - Similarity does not auto-merge entity identities ## Do not infer Nearest-neighbor proximity is not a factual predicate or proof that one statement supports another. ## Publication boundary Private search infrastructure unless explicitly published. ## Source basis S26, S24. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G29 — Temporal, version, and supersession graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: library governance view Priority: P2 Accountability: R14, R11, R24 ## Question Which fact or instruction applied at the relevant time? ## Nodes Claim; Document version; Effective interval; Observation; Supersession ## Relationship sketch - version → superseded version - claim → applicable interval - observation → collected time ## Evidence inputs Actual publication/effective dates, revision records, retrieval date, scope decisions. ## Implementation Store effective time separately from observation time. Keep historical claims for historical questions while blocking them from current instructions when superseded. ## Acceptance checks - An unknown effective date stays null - Current retrieval respects supersession - A review date is not substituted for a publication date ## Do not infer Newer text is not automatically more authoritative than older applicable evidence. ## Publication boundary Public revision notes as appropriate; internal record history private. ## Source basis S12, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G30 — Contradiction, uncertainty, and dispute graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: library governance view Priority: P2 Accountability: R14, R11, R24 ## Question Which assertions conflict, and what prevents a confident conclusion? ## Nodes Claim; Conflicting claim; Scope; Evidence; Resolution decision ## Relationship sketch - claim → conflicts with claim - resolution → supporting scope/evidence ## Evidence inputs Contradictory source statements, version/time differences, identity uncertainty, reviewer reasoning. ## Implementation Check whether apparent disagreements concern different dates, scopes, or entities before declaring contradiction. Retain unresolved alternatives and block their promotion into public facts. ## Acceptance checks - Conflicts remain inspectable after a preferred answer is chosen - Scope/date distinctions are recorded - Unresolved critical facts block dependent publication ## Do not infer A majority of copied statements is not a reliable conflict-resolution rule. ## Publication boundary Public corrections where appropriate; sensitive disputes private. ## Source basis S14, S16. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G31 — Source-dependency and change-impact graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: library governance view Priority: P2 Accountability: R14, R24, R21 ## Question Which lessons, code, tests, and pages must be reviewed when guidance changes? ## Nodes Source section; Claim; Lesson; Template; Code artifact; Test; Public page ## Relationship sketch - artifact → depends on claim - claim → source section - change → affected artifact ## Evidence inputs Explicit dependency mappings, source review events, version hashes, actual artifact identifiers. ## Implementation Track direct dependencies rather than merely storing a bibliography. A source change generates a scoped review queue; it must not silently rewrite production code or mark dependent claims false. ## Acceptance checks - A simulated source change identifies known dependents - Unknown impact is reported - Human review controls promotion of changed requirements ## Do not infer A changed webpage hash does not prove that the relevant technical requirement changed. ## Publication boundary Private maintenance graph; public changelog may summarize real updates. ## Source basis S14, S16. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G32 — Instruction, capability, and workflow dependency graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: private library operating design Priority: P1 Accountability: R24, R25, R20 ## Question Which authorized task can run with which dependencies and tools? ## Nodes Task; Role; Capability; Tool access; Artifact; Approval ## Relationship sketch - task → requires capability - step → predecessor - change → authorization record ## Evidence inputs Actual available tools, project instructions, owner scope, environment, and observed access. ## Implementation Use existing roles as responsibilities rather than invented staff. For each task, load the minimal context and one accountable writer. Distinguish a suggested plan from an executed step. ## Acceptance checks - Missing capability leaves the step blocked - Document text cannot grant tool permissions - Dependency cycles requiring a strict execution order are detected ## Do not infer An AGENTS file, schema, or plan is not a running agent or authority to deploy. ## Publication boundary Private; never expose operating instructions or credentials for SEO. ## Source basis S14, S42. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G33 — Requirement, test, evidence, and acceptance graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: private library operating design Priority: P0 Accountability: R21, R26, R25, R14 ## Question Which executed check supports each release or publication requirement? ## Nodes Requirement; Test definition; Test run; Build; Evidence; Verdict ## Relationship sketch - test → requirement - run → exact build - verdict → observed evidence ## Evidence inputs Predeclared contract, real runs, actual artifacts, timestamps, reviewer identity and independence declaration. ## Implementation Connect outcomes to exact tested builds. Keep self-review distinct from independent execution. A structural check catches missing records but cannot prove truth or authorize deployment. ## Acceptance checks - Every required pass has an executed matching test - Missing evidence remains blocked - A fixture pass is never reported as a client-site pass ## Do not infer A green JSON validation result does not prove a live website or mailbox works. ## Publication boundary Private evidence; only approved bounded public claims. ## Source basis S16, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G34 — Permissions, consent, and disclosure graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: policy-description and private governance view Priority: P0 Accountability: R20, R14, R24 ## Question Who may access, use, export, or publish each record? ## Nodes Resource; Person/role; Permission; Prohibition; Purpose; Disclosure decision ## Relationship sketch - policy → resource - permission → permitted action - derived artifact → inherited restrictions ## Evidence inputs Actual authorization, rights statements, owner-approved disclosure decisions, retention requirements. ## Implementation Enforce access in the real storage/retrieval layer; graph labels describe policy but do not enforce it. Review derived summaries for private-source leakage and track revocation through outputs. ## Acceptance checks - Unauthorized retrieval/export test is denied by real controls - Private evidence is excluded from public examples - Revocation identifies dependent outputs ## Do not infer A consent field or ODRL record alone is not legal compliance or effective access control. ## Publication boundary Policy summaries may be public; sensitive access records private. ## Source basis S42, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G35 — Multimedia, transcript, and rights graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: standards-informed library view Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE Accountability: R13, R11, R04, R20 ## Question How are images, videos, transcripts, creators, subjects, and rights connected? ## Nodes Image; Video; Transcript; WebPage; Creator; Rights statement ## Relationship sketch - asset → creator - transcript → video/version - page → displayed asset - asset → rights evidence ## Evidence inputs Actual files and metadata, visible captions, source/creator records, rights and approved descriptions. ## Implementation Keep a rights-aware asset registry that connects each media item to its page and accurate context. Distinguish depicted subjects from authors; avoid creating sensitive personal identity claims from appearances. ## Acceptance checks - Media references resolve to the intended asset - Captions/transcripts identify their correct version - Publication rights are reviewed before exporting metadata ## Do not infer Alt text, captions, and a transcript do not make all underlying facts correct or a video indexed. ## Publication boundary Approved assets/context public; rights evidence may be private. ## Source basis S33, S34, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G36 — Open Graph social-preview metadata Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: documented protocol; naming distinction Priority: P1 Accountability: R04, R11, R13 ## Question Which title, image, type, and URL should a sharing consumer preview? ## Nodes WebPage; Preview image; Title; Object type; URL ## Relationship sketch - page → preview metadata - preview → image asset ## Evidence inputs Actual rendered head metadata and observed sharing previews under stated conditions. ## Implementation Maintain Open Graph metadata alongside ordinary metadata and check consumer-specific output. Treat this as a preview representation, not as your semantic entity registry or evidence store. ## Acceptance checks - Preview URL and image match the intended page - Metadata is not copied with wrong titles across routes - Observed previews are recorded separately from configured intent ## Do not infer Open Graph, Google Knowledge Graph, and GraphRAG are three different things. ## Publication boundary Public page metadata. ## Source basis S35. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G37 — Social, professional, and interaction graphs Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: documented graph family; library analysis must be scoped Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE Accountability: R19, R11, R14, R20 ## Question What real professional relationships and permitted interactions are observable? ## Nodes Person/account; Organization; Work; Professional profile; Interaction ## Relationship sketch - profile → identified person - interaction → source/time - person → verified relationship ## Evidence inputs Permissioned/public profile facts, real collaborations, platform-exposed data, and collection limits. ## Implementation Use actual professional context to disambiguate identities or document work. Keep platform interactions separate from verified credentials and do not infer private relationships from recommendations. ## Acceptance checks - Every asserted relationship has a real source - Unverified profile matches remain candidates - Data collection respects platform and privacy boundaries ## Do not infer Connections, followers, or engagement counts do not establish expertise or Google ranking causality. ## Publication boundary Public approved professional facts only; private contacts not exported. ## Source basis S38, S04, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G38 — Scholarly and research graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: documented public-data graph family Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE Accountability: R10, R14, R11 ## Question Which works, authors, institutions, and citations form the relevant research record? ## Nodes Scholarly work; Author; Institution; Topic; Source; Citation ## Relationship sketch - work → author - work → cited work - author record → candidate person ## Evidence inputs Primary papers, public scholarly metadata such as OpenAlex, verified identifiers, original bibliographic sources. ## Implementation Use scholarly graphs to find literature and provenance, then read the actual work and verify author identity. Retain uncertain matches and separate a paper's claim from its later corroboration. ## Acceptance checks - Author matches are reviewed - Cited conclusions match the actual paper scope - Retractions/corrections are checked where material ## Do not infer A citation count or database entry does not prove a research claim or a person's credentials. ## Publication boundary Permitted metadata and citations public; restricted full texts not republished. ## Source basis S37, S36, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G39 — Event, venue, organizer, and time graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: standards-backed library view Priority: P3_IF_APPLICABLE Accountability: R11, R13, R14 ## Question Which real event occurs when and where, and who organizes it? ## Nodes Event occurrence; Series; Venue; Organizer; Performer; Offer ## Relationship sketch - occurrence → venue/time - occurrence → organizer - series → actual occurrences ## Evidence inputs Actual event announcements, schedules, organizers, cancellations, venue facts, and ticket details. ## Implementation Track occurrences and status changes rather than treating a recurring event as one eternal date. Keep online locations, venues, and organizers distinct. ## Acceptance checks - Dates and time zones match approved announcements - Cancelled or rescheduled status is retained - The page actually represents an event eligible for the selected feature ## Do not infer An organization's ordinary opening hours are not automatically an eligible Event. ## Publication boundary Approved event information public. ## Source basis S32. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # G40 — Learning prerequisite and curriculum graph Status: NEW RESEARCHED DESIGN; not deployed Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Nature: custom teaching design Priority: P1 Accountability: R13, R10, R14, R24 ## Question What must a learner or agent understand before attempting each task? ## Nodes Concept; Lesson; Exercise; Prerequisite; Assessment; Source requirement ## Relationship sketch - lesson → prerequisite - exercise → concept - assessment → evidence of competence ## Evidence inputs This curriculum, learning objectives, source-linked explanations, actual exercise answers and review. ## Implementation Sequence identity before markup, evidence before authority claims, and observations before causal inference. Route learners to prerequisites when an assessment exposes a misconception. ## Acceptance checks - Prerequisite dependencies are coherent - Each lesson has an exercise and answer criteria - Completing lessons is not presented as a professional credential ## Do not infer A generated completion badge does not certify expertise or successful production execution. ## Publication boundary Teaching content may be public after review; learner records private. ## Source basis S15, S14. See Research/sources.json. Sources 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. ============================================================================== PRIMARY SOURCE REGISTER ======================= All review dates: 2026-09-12. A review date is not a source publication date. Sources were used for the scoped graph expansion, not to revalidate the entire original corpus. URLs are references to live documents, not archived snapshots. S01 — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content Supports: E-E-A-T and authorship guidance; not a specific standalone ranking factor. Does not establish: Does not specify an E-E-A-T graph, public numeric score, or guaranteed outcomes. S02 — Organization structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/organization Supports: Published organization identification and supported structured-data properties. Does not establish: Does not establish facts about Joseph or require every domain to be a separate business. S03 — ProfilePage structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/profile-page Supports: Profile pages focused on one affiliated Person or Organization and their eligible markup. Does not establish: Does not guarantee a knowledge panel or authorize invented biographies. S04 — sameAs Publisher: Schema.org https://schema.org/sameAs Supports: A reference URL that unambiguously identifies the same item. Does not establish: Does not mean related topic, common ownership, endorsement, or automatic provider recognition. S05 — Person Publisher: Schema.org https://schema.org/Person Supports: Vocabulary for people and documented person properties. Does not establish: Vocabulary availability does not verify a credential or relationship. S06 — Brand Publisher: Schema.org https://schema.org/Brand Supports: A brand is representable separately from the organization, website, and person. Does not establish: Does not establish legal status or ownership. S07 — Service Publisher: Schema.org https://schema.org/Service Supports: Service, provider, and service-area modeling vocabulary. Does not establish: Does not establish a physical branch or guarantee a rich result. S08 — General structured data guidelines Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/sd-policies Supports: Visible-content accuracy, policies, and feature eligibility. Does not establish: Valid JSON alone does not guarantee eligibility or display. S09 — A guide to Google Search ranking systems Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide Supports: Link analysis and evolved PageRank are among documented ranking systems. Does not establish: Does not expose present proprietary weights or make a local centrality score a Google score. S10 — Knowledge Graph Search API Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/knowledge-graph Supports: Read-only entity search; individual matches rather than an interconnected graph; migration and critical-dependency warnings. Does not establish: Not an ingestion API, full graph export, authority score, or recommended new production dependency. S11 — Introducing the Knowledge Graph: things, not strings Publisher: Google https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not/ Supports: Historical disclosure of an entity-and-relationship system. Does not establish: Historical counts and implementation details must not be presented as current. S12 — RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ Supports: Triples, directed labeled graphs, IRIs, and RDF datasets. Does not establish: This pinned specification is not a requirement imposed on ordinary SEO websites. S13 — JSON-LD 1.1 Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/ Supports: JSON-based Linked Data representation, identifiers, contexts, and graphs. Does not establish: Serialization does not establish truth or search-engine ingestion. S14 — PROV-O: The PROV Ontology Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ Supports: Entities, activities, agents, and provenance relationships. Does not establish: Does not certify source independence or guarantee factual correctness. S15 — SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ Supports: Concept schemes, labels, broader/narrower and related concepts. Does not establish: A topic taxonomy is not a public Google topical-authority score. S16 — Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/ Supports: Validation of data graphs against shapes and constraints. Does not establish: A conforming graph is not necessarily factually true. S17 — Consolidate duplicate URLs Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/consolidate-duplicate-urls Supports: Canonicalization of duplicate or similar documents and associated signals. Does not establish: Document equivalence is not identity equivalence between their publishers. S18 — Localized versions of your pages Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/specialty/international/localized-versions Supports: Language/region alternative page annotations. Does not establish: Does not require unrelated regional doorway pages or prove a business has offices there. S19 — Make your links crawlable Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/links-crawlable Supports: Discoverable links and useful anchor text. Does not establish: Does not prescribe an ideal universal link count or expose link weights. S20 — JavaScript SEO basics Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/javascript/javascript-seo-basics Supports: Crawling, rendering, links, content, and JavaScript delivery considerations. Does not establish: Does not make a successful browser run proof that an external engine indexed the page. S21 — Optimizing for generative AI features on Google Search Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide Supports: SEO foundations, query fan-out, no special AI schema/file requirement, and current reporting guidance. Does not establish: Does not mandate a public graph endpoint or disclose an exact query fan-out for a particular result. S22 — AI Performance help Publisher: Microsoft Bing https://www.bing.com/webmasters/help/ai-performance-9f8e7d6c Supports: Documented grounding-query and cited-page observations with metric boundaries. Does not establish: Citations are not rankings, authority, traffic, or the complete universe of AI usage. S23 — Introducing AI Performance in Bing Webmaster Tools: Public Preview Publisher: Microsoft Bing https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/February-2026/Introducing-AI-Performance-in-Bing-Webmaster-Tools-Public-Preview Supports: Dated February 2026 launch context for citation reporting. Does not establish: Launch documentation alone does not establish all later report fields. S24 — GraphRAG documentation Publisher: Microsoft https://microsoft.github.io/graphrag/ Supports: Graph-based organization and retrieval of a corpus with entity/community representations. Does not establish: Not proof that public search products use this implementation or that it beats every baseline. S25 — GraphRAG local search Publisher: Microsoft https://microsoft.github.io/graphrag/query/local_search/ Supports: Retrieval combining graph-linked entities with original text units. Does not establish: Generated extraction or summaries must not be treated as independently verified facts. S26 — Hierarchical Navigable Small World graphs Publisher: Malkov and Yashunin https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09320 Supports: Primary research on graph-based approximate nearest-neighbor search. Does not establish: Vector proximity is not identity, entailment, citation support, or human authority. S27 — Overview of OpenAI crawlers Publisher: OpenAI https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/bots Supports: Separate search, training, and user-directed access roles. Does not establish: Allowing a crawler does not guarantee citation or train an assistant on a private uploaded graph. S28 — LocalBusiness structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/local-business Supports: Feature-specific business/location representations and requirements. Does not establish: A service area must not be used to invent a physical location; publication needs privacy review. S29 — Review snippet structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/review-snippet Supports: Review feature eligibility and self-serving LocalBusiness/Organization review restrictions. Does not establish: Authentic testimonials do not automatically qualify for review stars. S30 — Product structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/product Supports: Product and offer information in supported search experiences. Does not establish: Does not imply all product information is current or validate feed/landing-page agreement. S31 — Shopping Graph explained Publisher: Google https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/shopping/shopping-graph-explained/ Supports: Documented shopping graph as a product and shopping-information system. Does not establish: Not a graph publishers can directly overwrite; historical quantities are not current metrics. S32 — Event structured data Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/event Supports: Event-specific dates, locations, and feature modeling. Does not establish: Not every service, sale, or recurring business schedule is an eligible event. S33 — Google Images SEO best practices Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/google-images Supports: Image discovery, contextual information, and relevant metadata. Does not establish: Does not mandate the custom multimedia graph defined in this package. S34 — Video SEO best practices Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/video Supports: Video discovery and page/asset context. Does not establish: A transcript or graph record alone does not prove a video is eligible or indexed. S35 — The Open Graph protocol Publisher: Open Graph protocol https://ogp.me/ Supports: Social-preview metadata including title, type, image, and URL. Does not establish: Open Graph is not Google Knowledge Graph, an E-E-A-T score, or GraphRAG. S36 — Help: Sources Publisher: Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources Supports: Source-backed statements in Wikidata. Does not establish: Does not justify creating promotional identities or ignoring project inclusion policies. S37 — How it is built Publisher: OpenAlex https://help.openalex.org/data/how-its-built/ Supports: Public scholarly data assembled from multiple sources. Does not establish: Dataset inclusion does not prove a person authored a work or that a claim is true. S38 — Economic Graph Publisher: LinkedIn https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/ Supports: A documented professional/economic graph initiative. Does not establish: Not evidence that LinkedIn connections cause Google rankings or establish credentials. S39 — PageRank algorithm documentation Publisher: NetworkX https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/generated/networkx.algorithms.link_analysis.pagerank_alg.pagerank.html Supports: Computing PageRank on a graph supplied by the analyst. Does not establish: Not access to the Google ranking graph or proprietary PageRank values. S40 — Bipartite graphs Publisher: NetworkX https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/bipartite.html Supports: Two-set graph modeling and graph operations. Does not establish: Does not make a query-document projection a disclosed search-engine system. S41 — Components Publisher: NetworkX https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/component.html Supports: Connected and strongly connected component algorithms. Does not establish: A cycle in ordinary site navigation is not inherently a defect. S42 — ODRL Information Model 2.2 Publisher: W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/ Supports: Permissions, prohibitions, and duties as a policy description. Does not establish: Descriptions do not enforce access or certify valid legal consent. S43 — Spam policies for Google web search Publisher: Google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies Supports: Abuse boundaries including link spam and scaled content abuse. Does not establish: Does not authorize manipulation because it is expressed as graph construction. S44 — Helping you along your Search journeys Publisher: Google https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/helping-you-along-your-search-journeys/ Supports: Historical disclosure of a Topic Layer associated with Knowledge Graph. Does not establish: Not evidence of current complete architecture, exact graph weights, or a publisher-controlled feature. S45 — Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources Publisher: Dong and colleagues https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519 Supports: Historical primary research estimating source trustworthiness from extracted factual information while distinguishing extraction errors. Does not establish: Not proof of current Google deployment, a public SEO score, or equivalence with E-E-A-T. S46 — Knowledge Vault: A Web-Scale Approach to Probabilistic Knowledge Fusion Publisher: Google Research https://research.google/pubs/knowledge-vault-a-web-scale-approach-to-probabilistic-knowledge-fusion/ Supports: Historical primary research combining web extractions and prior knowledge with probabilistic fusion. Does not establish: A research publication is not a currently available submission endpoint or guaranteed factual correctness. S47 — HITS: hubs and authorities Publisher: NetworkX https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/generated/networkx.algorithms.link_analysis.hits_alg.hits.html Supports: Official implementation documentation for separate hub and authority scores on an input graph. Does not establish: Not an engine-provided E-E-A-T score or evidence that this exact implementation runs in current Google Search. S48 — Jigs and Lures: Associating Web Queries with Strongly-Typed Entities Publisher: Microsoft Research https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/jigs-and-lures-associating-web-queries-with-strongly-typed-entities/ Supports: Primary research using query–entity click graphs to model associations. Does not establish: An association does not establish identity or truth; experimental logs are not the user's available data or current production specification. S49 — Combating Web Spam with TrustRank Publisher: Gyöngyi, Garcia-Molina, and Pedersen / VLDB https://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF Supports: Historical primary research using expert-reviewed seeds and link structure for spam detection; abstract and introductory graph model inspected. Does not establish: Does not establish current deployment in Google, a universal seed list, or permission to manufacture trust links. ============================================================================== SYNTHETIC PUBLIC JSON-LD EXAMPLE — NOT PRODUCTION ================================================ # Example boundaries synthetic-public-graph.jsonld contains seven hypothetical nodes on example.com. It is an instructional fragment, NOT APPROVED FOR PRODUCTION and not a complete rich-result submission. It is deliberately not Joseph's real entity graph. No profile, organization, legal name, founding date, credential, client result, price, address, review count, or production identity was verified for this example. There are no sameAs claims because no matching external identity references were verified. An @id ending in #person identifies the person; #webpage identifies the biography document. The service provider and article publisher are the hypothetical organization, not its Brand or WebSite. Only internal ID-reference closure, unique IDs, basic typing, and designated relationship targets are checked by the supplied offline tests. There has been no live Rich Results test, full RDF expansion, Schema.org vocabulary validator run, webpage comparison, or factual verification of this example. The claim templates are deliberately unapproved. Completing fields does not create evidence or authority. { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@graph": [ { "@id": "https://example.com/people/example-author/#person", "@type": "Person", "name": "Example Author", "url": "https://example.com/people/example-author/" }, { "@id": "https://example.com/#organization", "@type": "Organization", "name": "Example Studio", "url": "https://example.com/", "brand": { "@id": "https://example.com/#brand" } }, { "@id": "https://example.com/#brand", "@type": "Brand", "name": "Example Studio Brand" }, { "@id": "https://example.com/#website", "@type": "WebSite", "url": "https://example.com/", "name": "Example Studio website", "publisher": { "@id": "https://example.com/#organization" } }, { "@id": "https://example.com/people/example-author/#webpage", "@type": "ProfilePage", "url": "https://example.com/people/example-author/", "name": "About Example Author", "mainEntity": { "@id": "https://example.com/people/example-author/#person" }, "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://example.com/#website" } }, { "@id": "https://example.com/services/website-design/#service", "@type": "Service", "name": "Website design", "serviceType": "Website design", "url": "https://example.com/services/website-design/", "provider": { "@id": "https://example.com/#organization" } }, { "@id": "https://example.com/guides/checking-a-contact-form/#article", "@type": "Article", "headline": "A method for checking a contact form", "url": "https://example.com/guides/checking-a-contact-form/", "author": { "@id": "https://example.com/people/example-author/#person" }, "publisher": { "@id": "https://example.com/#organization" }, "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://example.com/#website" } } ] } INTERNAL CLAIM TEMPLATE — DELIBERATELY BLOCKED ============================================ { "claim_id": "urn:example:claim:001", "subject": "urn:example:person:001", "predicate": "https://schema.org/worksFor", "object": { "kind": "entity", "id": "urn:example:organization:001" }, "claim_status": "candidate", "evidence_class": "example", "evidence": [], "effective_from": null, "effective_to": null, "observed_at": null, "confidence": { "level": "not_assessed", "basis": null }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "reviewer": null, "reviewed_at": null }, "publication": { "visibility": "private", "approved": false, "approved_by": null, "approved_at": null, "permission_review": "not_reviewed" }, "is_example": true, "reviewed_on": null, "graph_ids": [ "G01", "G02", "G10" ] } LOCAL VALIDATION SUMMARY ======================== 28 standard-library unit tests passed. Package integrity checks passed. The record schema and blocked template validated, and four malformed/publication-conflicting variants were rejected using jsonschema 4.26.0. These results describe local artifacts only. No website, public profile, search account, rich-result service, or independent external audit was tested.

Search equations, builds, manuscript text, and recovered sources.