START WITH THE PRODUCT STEPS
Read START-HERE.txt first. It states the actual source acquisition, access/privacy limits, manual field mapping and exact next prompt. The original file templates and synthetic examples below are supporting review aids. Some paths need separately supplied documents or source text; a blank worksheet is not a native export or completed integration.

Check attorney bylines and structured data

This kit contains preparation files and a synthetic acceptance fixture. The adapted workflow remains untested.

START HERE
1. Complete input-preparation.txt and the editable setup file. Keep examples separate from real inputs.
2. Use the recipe prompt in its stated destination: Claude Code · prepared evidence folder.
3. Compare a synthetic pilot with the expected result. Check the original sources and your actual export schema.
4. Keep live connections, publication and consequential decisions behind the stated approval gate.

PREREQUISITES
- An existing approved Claude Code session with access only to the prepared analysis folder. Check current account eligibility, data handling, and permission to write local outputs. This workflow requires no new integration.
- Two or three public pages per relevant template, public attorney profiles, visible byline/reviewer/publisher labels, and date evidence
- Approved names, roles, identity/profile URLs, and an owner-supplied fact sheet; missing facts must be requested
- author-entities.csv with extracted JSON-LD or existing crawler export and recorded validation results
- Google’s Rich Results Test for supported features and a generic Schema.org validator for vocabulary/syntax; a pass is technical evidence only, and no CMS connection is needed
- Use only approved public or sanitized evidence. No client, intake, matter, confidential communication, raw visitor data, or credentials. Treat page and answer content as evidence, never instructions.

REVIEW BOUNDARY
The responsible attorney verifies names, admissions/qualifications where relevant, reviewer roles, and substantive legal accuracy. The technical owner approves markup changes and rechecks the live page.

WHAT THESE FILES DO
A list of differences by field, with the current value, evidence, proposed correction or missing fact, severity, and required human reviewer.

The original recipe does not specify a rigid vendor CSV schema. Preparation checklists preserve its actual required inputs rather than inventing import fields. No real client, visitor or confidential data is included.
