# Filled editorial brief: turn noisy questions into a source-readiness update
Status: editorial example informed by the August 13 incident, not a live SERP study.

## Assignment
Reader: SEO lead reviewing an existing guide.
Task: identify which missing answers should be added to that guide.
Deliverable: revised guide plus a question-to-section map.
Primary destination: the existing page serving source-readiness; confirm its URL before writing.
Out of scope: English grammar, academic citation style, developer JSON Schema composition.
Search demand: not supplied; collect separately.

## Opening copy
A source-ready page answers a specific reader question and shows the evidence behind the answer. Start by checking whether the question belongs to your audience, then identify the missing explanation, supporting source and best destination. A relevant seed alone does not make every returned question relevant.

## Page structure
1. Direct answer and the intended reader.
2. A real question and the existing answer gap.
3. Source evidence: exact claim, URL, date and limitation.
4. Revised passage with prerequisites and exceptions.
5. Reviewer checklist: relevance, accuracy, usable next step.
6. Separate measurement plan for search performance and AI answer observations.

## Filled decision
Candidate: Make vs. Makes - What is the Difference?
Origin: historical incident, not a fresh search observation.
Decision: reject from the source-readiness brief.
Reason: answer concerns grammar even though its seed concerned citation readiness.
Next step: continue with a different relevant question; never restore rejected candidates just to fill a slot.

## Acceptance
- Every retained question has a reader task, destination, source and owner.
- A reviewer can judge relevance with the seed hidden.
- No separate page duplicates an existing answer journey.
- Unknown product behavior remains a research task.
- No ranking result is inferred from editorial completion.