How to review AEO deliverables before accepting the work
A list of “optimised pages” and a screenshot of an AI answer do not tell you what changed or whether the work is complete. Before accepting it, open the affected pages and compare them with the agreed brief. Check the facts as well as the implementation.
Set criteria before work starts. If the project is already ending, reconstruct them from the approved brief. Distinguish new requests from defects so corrections do not become an endlessly expanding project.
Ask for the files and evidence needed to check the work
| Work | Material to receive | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Content | Final copy, URL and factual sources | Answer and conditions appear on the page |
| Template change | Change description and affected pages | Sample several pages using that template |
| Metadata | Final values and URLs | Compare the supplied values with the published HTML |
| Bug fix | Original example and repeat check | The old steps no longer reproduce the defect |
| Visibility measurement | Questions, date, system and method | The report explains what was tested and how to repeat it |
Your team should retain editable copy, change files and instructions in an agreed location. A PDF of screenshots is not enough to maintain the work later.
Follow one question all the way through
Suppose the task is to explain data export. This is a teaching example. Open the page as a visitor. Does it specify the records, format and limits? Has the product owner approved those facts? Can a visitor reach the answer from the relevant service page?
If publication was included, the work is not finished while the old copy remains online. If the new copy is live but its facts have not been approved, send it for factual review. Describe the specific omission so the provider knows what to correct.
Check publication separately from search results
Record the site version and check time. Ask the developer to verify the agreed URLs, response codes, canonical tags and absence of accidental noindex. Check links between language versions. Structured data should match visible content, as well as pass syntax checks.
Accessibility is not the same as indexing or citation. Google’s guidance says meeting requirements does not guarantee search appearance, including AI features. “Change released” and “external result observed” belong in separate report entries.
Describe each issue clearly
For each issue, record the URL, the agreed requirement, what happened and the steps needed to reproduce it. Explain what should happen instead. Distinguish a failure to meet the original brief from a new request, and repeat the check after the correction.
Agree on these checks before AEO implementation begins. Use a separate AI visibility measurement plan to monitor later responses. An individual model answer cannot establish whether the agreed site changes were completed.
Published: · Reviewed by the geo-rank.ai editorial team · How we check