The playbook
Schema Markup: Review Process
A useful schema markup review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: URL, type, property, evidence. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Select an appropriate type for facts the page actually presents. A product page, article, and local business page describe different entities. Validate both syntax and the applicable feature guidance. Valid markup alone does not guarantee a special search appearance.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Choose a supported type that matches the page | Is the supporting URL current and traceable? |
| Populate properties with accurate visible information | Does type support the decision being made? |
| Validate syntax and check eligibility guidance | Can the next owner verify evidence? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to inventing ratings or adding markup for hidden content. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, mark up only supported facts and remove misleading properties. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to valid relevant structured-data items using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Test representative templates as well as individual URLs. When a problem appears on several pages built from the same component, a template correction may be more useful than a series of one-off edits. Verify the affected pages after the shared change.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now