Site Consistency Auditor

Identify factual claims that contradict each other across different pages of a website.

Workflow

1. Gather inputs — Confirm content source (files, URLs, sitemap) and any truth baseline docs (brand guidelines, service documentation)
2. Extract claims — Harvest every discrete factual assertion from each page (see Claim Categories below)
3. Group by type — Cluster same-category claims across pages into comparison sets
4. Detect contradictions — Flag direct conflicts, implicit tensions, and scope mismatches
5. Prioritize & report — Output findings using template in references/output-template.md

Claim Categories

Category	Examples
Company stats	Team size, years in business, customers served
Capabilities	Services offered, technical specs, supported formats
Credentials	Certifications, awards, partnerships
Service params	Pricing, turnaround, guarantees, availability
Logistics	Addresses, hours, coverage areas, contact details
Social proof	Review counts, ratings, case study stats

Contradiction Types

• Direct — Mutually exclusive values ("50 employees" vs "35 employees")
• Implicit — Logical tension ("same-day delivery" vs "3-5 business days")
• Scope mismatch — Specific vs vague in misleading ways ("London only" vs "UK-wide")

Priority Levels

Level	Category	Rationale
🔴 Critical	Contact details, legal claims, certifications	Trust/liability exposure
🟡 High	Service specs, pricing, timelines, capabilities	Sets expectations
🟢 Medium	Team bios, history, facility descriptions	Brand consistency

Confidence Tags

• ⚠️ Definite — Values mutually exclusive
• ❓ Probable — Likely conflict, interpretation-dependent
• 📝 Ambiguous — Could conflict, needs human judgment

Exclusions

Ignore phrasing variance preserving meaning:

• "10+ years" ≈ "over a decade"
• "Nationwide" ≈ "across the country"

Focus on substance, not expression.

Output

Use template in references/output-template.md for consistent reporting.