E-E-A-T audit for AI and Google visibility

What does an E-E-A-T audit assess?

An E-E-A-T audit assesses how clearly a website demonstrates experience, expertise, authority and trust through its content and supporting information. It is useful when a company is entering a new market, publishing advice on consequential topics, preparing for a site redesign, or trying to understand why its expertise is difficult to verify from its public pages.

The review connects editorial claims with evidence that a visitor can actually inspect. We look at whether pages identify their purpose and authors, whether qualifications and first-hand experience are explained where relevant, and whether the organization behind the content is easy to understand. We also flag gaps between what a page says and what its supporting materials establish.

This is a diagnostic service, not a certification. It gives decision-makers a structured view of what is present, what is unclear and what should be addressed first. For a wider view of how this work fits into AI search visibility, we map relevant audit findings to your broader discovery goals. If the priority is a specific answer experience, the review can also inform work on Google AI Overviews or Perplexity visibility.

Which trust signals do we review on your site?

We review the visible evidence that helps a reader evaluate who is speaking, what supports the advice and how the organization can be held accountable. The exact page sample is agreed at kickoff, so the audit follows your business model and the decisions your audience needs to make rather than applying an unrelated checklist.

Typical review areas include:

• Experience: first-hand examples, original observations and clear context for claims about work performed.
• Expertise: author identity, relevant credentials or experience, and editorial review where the topic calls for it.
• Authority: consistent organizational and contributor information, plus substantiation for claims of recognition or leadership.
• Trust: accessible contact and company details, transparent policies, current information and clear sourcing.
• Content integrity: whether claims, evidence and page purpose align, and whether important qualifications are easy to find.

For each finding, we record the affected page or template, the evidence observed, why the gap matters to readers, and a recommended next action. We distinguish a missing signal from a signal that exists but is hard to interpret. That distinction helps your team decide whether to update a page, establish a review process or make company information more accessible. Findings can also guide a separate content for AI answers program.

What will your team receive from the audit?

You receive a documented audit that turns observations into accountable work. The report is designed for both decision-makers and the people implementing changes, with each recommendation tied to an observed page, signal or governance issue rather than broad advice to “build trust.”

The engagement includes a scope-confirmation checklist, a review of agreed pages and trust evidence, a prioritized findings register, and an implementation brief. We group recommendations by the kind of owner likely to act on them—such as editorial, compliance, product or technical teams—and identify dependencies where one change requires another. A review session gives your stakeholders a chance to confirm context and agree on next steps.

We prepare:

• A page and signal inventory for the agreed scope.
• A consistent review rubric for experience, expertise, authority and trust.
• A findings register with evidence, priority and recommended owner.
• A concise leadership summary and implementation discussion.

Your team provides:

• The site or page list and the business priorities for the review.
• Available author, company, editorial and compliance information.
• Any approved source materials that substantiate important claims.
• One contact who can resolve questions and coordinate reviewers.

MegaSatoshi uses a named evidence review: recommendations are checked against the page or material cited in the finding before the report is finalized. This makes it easier to verify the diagnosis and assign work without treating an opinion as a fact.

How does the E-E-A-T audit move from scope to action?

The audit moves from agreed scope to documented evidence, then to a prioritized plan your team can implement. A clear review path protects the work from becoming a generic checklist and gives stakeholders a chance to correct factual misunderstandings before recommendations are finalized.

1. Scope the decision. We confirm the site, audience, business context and pages that matter to the question you need answered.
2. Gather evidence. Your contact shares relevant author, organization, policy and source materials; we record what is publicly visible and what has been supplied for review.
3. Review pages and signals. We assess the agreed sample using the same rubric, noting evidence, gaps, inconsistencies and unclear claims.
4. Validate context. We raise material questions with your designated contact and distinguish confirmed facts from items that need client verification.
5. Prioritize and hand over. You receive the findings register, recommended owners and a walkthrough of the actions and dependencies.

The timeline is set after scope confirmation, based on the number and variety of pages and how quickly the necessary materials are available. Before kickoff, decide who can approve factual changes and whether compliance or subject-matter reviewers need to join the findings session. If you want to continue beyond diagnosis, the audit can feed into technical AEO work or AI visibility monitoring, with each follow-on scope agreed separately.

What can an E-E-A-T audit establish—and what can’t it?

An E-E-A-T audit can establish what evidence is visible in the agreed scope, where it is unclear or inconsistent, and what practical changes may improve its clarity for readers and search experiences. It cannot certify that Google or an AI system will interpret a signal in a particular way or include a page in an answer.

Google’s presentation and evaluation of search results can change, and AI answer systems select and display sources through processes outside the audit team’s control. We therefore report observable evidence and deliver the agreed review and recommendations; we do not claim that a specific edit will produce a ranking, citation or recommendation. Treat the report as a governance and quality-control tool: assign owners, document approvals and revisit important claims when the underlying evidence changes.

How should you prepare for an E-E-A-T audit?

Prepare a focused scope and the materials that let reviewers verify what your site says. A short, well-organized evidence pack makes the review more useful than a large archive with no explanation of which claims matter.

Before the first discussion, gather the pages you want assessed, your main audience and the business question behind the audit. Include author biographies, relevant credentials or work examples, company information, editorial or review policies, and approved sources for claims that could affect a reader’s decision. Mark confidential items clearly and share only what is necessary for the agreed scope. If some evidence is not public, tell us whether it may be used to inform recommendations without being published.

For projects that need a broader visibility strategy, the audit can sit within GEO audit planning, while a team focused on a particular business category can explore AI visibility for finance or AI visibility for crypto. To start, send MegaSatoshi your site, priority pages and the evidence you already have; we will confirm the scope, identify any missing inputs and return a proposed audit plan. The E-E-A-T audit starts from $590 / project.

Prices

Starting prices in USD. Custom bundles and volume discounts on request. Payment in USDT, USDC, BTC, ETH, SOL, TON or your project token.

How it works

1. Confirm the audit scopeShare your site, priority pages, audience and the decision the audit should support. We agree the review sample and required evidence before work begins.
2. Provide supporting materialsSend relevant author, company, editorial and source information through the agreed channel. Your designated contact can clarify context during the review.
3. Review evidence and page signalsWe document what is visible, what is substantiated and where readers may encounter ambiguity across the agreed pages.
4. Validate material findingsWe check open factual questions with your contact and keep confirmed observations distinct from items that need your team’s verification.
5. Receive and prioritize the action planYou get a findings register, implementation brief and walkthrough so owners can agree on sequencing and responsibilities.