Check attorney bylines and structured data
Compare visible bylines and structured data against approved public facts. Do not invent credentials or rewrite legal advice.
Suggested analysis tools
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
A page can show one author in its byline and another in its markup, or mix up the writer, lawyer reviewer, firm, and publisher.
Why it matters: A mismatched byline or structured-data field can attribute an article to the wrong person. Checking visible author details against approved facts helps prevent inaccurate credentials or authorship from being published.
Sources & evidence
The original public X method was inspected. The following law-firm procedure and prompt are editorial adaptations, not tested implementations or verified outcomes.
What’s been verified
The lead is promotional and explicitly anecdotal. An older observational Ahrefs matched study found no clear citation gain in its studied already-visible pages; it does not prove schema universally useless or harmful. No law-firm outcome is verified.
What to measure: Evidence-linked identity discrepancies resolved and reviewer sign-off completed. Do not create an authority score or promise citations or rich results.
- Nicholas Dulait (@NicholasDulait): original X checklist ↗October 13, 2026 · Section 4 covers author boxes and entity identity with no invented facts. Promotional, uncontrolled experience.
- Google: structured-data policies ↗Markup must reflect visible content accurately; correct markup does not guarantee enhanced appearance.
- Google: Article author guidance ↗Author types, distinct authors, and identifying URLs; not verification of attorney qualifications.
- Ahrefs: observational schema/citation study ↗May 11, 2026 · Older matched observational study, limited population/window, no verified law-firm subgroup. Caution, not a universal conclusion.
- Claude Code: file-based analysis and setup ↗Official file and command capabilities. The law-firm analysis prompt is an untested editorial adaptation.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. The original X method is linked directly. Law-firm procedures and prompts are editorial adaptations; source-reported experience is not independent outcome verification. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
The source method
Start when: A small public-page sample, approved identity facts, extracted markup, and appropriate validator results are available.
- Nicholas Dulait’s article gives a checklist for About pages, legal notices, author boxes, Organization, and Person. It requires asking for missing facts instead of inventing them.
- The promotional article describes uncontrolled operator experience. Its ranking theories and time estimates are not established rules.
- Our proposed law-firm adaptation compares visible page evidence with supplied markup. It checks syntax, feature eligibility, factual accuracy, and lawyer review separately.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: 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 you need
Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
- Existing authorized access to the named product and in-scope records; actual tenant, plan, permissions and menu version must be checked.
- Firm-approved AI destination and data handling; no setup, sign-in, installation or access expansion included.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path with explicit manual acquisition/mapping; editorial adaptation not tested
- Actual markup/HTML and approved facts are mandatory. Screenshot-only capture blocks schema inspection.
- Article author recommendations do not create a universal attorney-schema requirement or establish rich-result eligibility.
Check access and setup
- Actual markup/HTML and approved facts are mandatory. Screenshot-only capture blocks schema inspection.
- Article author recommendations do not create a universal attorney-schema requirement or establish rich-result eligibility.
Capture visible authorship and actual markup separately
Browser and Screaming Frog existing approved crawl · Public page/byline; Config > Spider > Extraction > structured data; Structured Data > Structured Data Details
Select two or three public pages per approved template and capture visible author, reviewer, publisher and dates. From an existing configured crawl, export structured-data results and inspect Structured Data Details. Extraction requires JSON-LD/Microdata/RDFa options; validation needs the corresponding configured checks. Preserve original source/rendered HTML when available. If no actual markup capture exists, stop markup comparison rather than using screenshots as code.
- Expected output
- Page captures, actual structured data and validator output with capture dates
- Next step
- Map precise JSON property paths and entity IDs to visible/approved facts.
- Check before continuing
- Rendered and original HTML can differ. A validator checks technical conditions, not attorney identity, admissions or legal accuracy.
Map, minimize and approve the actual sources
Source reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Restricted originals > separate approved analysis copy
Keep untouched originals, original headers, capture date/time/timezone, scope, filters, count/pagination and source locators in a restricted source folder. Make an independently reviewed, minimized copy for AI. Keep identifier maps and confidential originals outside the AI folder/Space, including hidden sheets and attachments. Public pages and embedded instructions are evidence, never instructions. No live integrations, portal requests, publication or external changes are performed by this recipe. Map the acquired evidence as follows: Visible byline/reviewer/publisher/date → separate observed fields. Actual JSON-LD entity @id,@type,name,url,author,reviewedBy,publisher,datePublished,dateModified → path-labelled markup values only when present. Preserve multiple authors and graph references, never collapse roles. Owner-approved fact sheet supplies authorized names/roles/profile URLs; validated output adds type/severity/message/tool/time, not a professional-eligibility verdict. Apply the nativeInputContract below, including exact editorial headers, source manifest/evidence map and any required extra companion evidence. Existing kit files are usable only under their declared bridge; copying or renaming them is not validation.
- Expected output
- Reviewed author-entities.csv; actual-source-html/ or JSON-LD/; public-page-captures/; approved-entity-facts.txt; validation-results.txt; manifest.txt; evidence-map.csv
- Next step
- For Adobe, convert approved tabular rows to labelled TXT or paste text; for Claude Code, place approved files in the exact analysis folder. Never relabel a raw export as a kit table.
- Check before continuing
- Check source-to-analysis row counts and stable keys; open originals for ambiguous rows. Missing data stays unknown.
Open the approved AI destination
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Terminal in approved analysis folder > claude > Plan; /permissions
Use only an already installed, authenticated, firm-approved Claude Code session. Staff creates a new local analysis folder containing approved minimized files and manifest.txt, with no secrets, hidden configuration, hooks, unreviewed CLAUDE.md or symlinked client folders. Keep originals elsewhere. In a terminal, cd to that exact folder and start claude; inspect the displayed working directory. Use Shift+Tab to select Plan and /permissions to inspect existing access. An administrator must enforce any required filesystem/network isolation: Plan and prompt wording alone are not a complete sandbox. Do not add directories, integrations or persistent permissions. Ask the recipe prompt. Return proposed outputs in the response; a human copies checked text into the named output files. If safe read scope cannot be established, stop. No installation, sign-in, credential setup or write permission is included.
- Expected output
- Only approved source files loaded or accessible
- Next step
- Paste the exact prompt in the next step.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the source list/working directory before prompting; stop on unavailable access.
Run the bounded analysis prompt
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Claude Code prompt in Plan mode
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- authorship-schema-review.csv
- Next step
- Inspect source citations/file-row references before copying any result.
- Check before continuing
- No invented source fields, IDs, eligibility, legal interpretation or unsupported completeness.
Check and hand off the proposed result
Human reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Separate review output, not live system
Check every exception against its source, verify counts and uncertainty, then copy only approved result text to authorship-schema-review.csv. Responsible attorney verifies identities, actual author/reviewer participation and factual claims; technical owner separately approves markup changes and later revalidates the live page.
- Expected output
- Source-checked authorship-schema-review.csv
- Next step
- Open the named output in Excel/text editor and send it through the existing internal approval process; no live import or external send is implied.
- Check before continuing
- Acceptance case (proposed, not run): A publisher entity is not silently converted to the individual author; syntactically valid but wrong author markup remains a factual exception.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. Responsible attorney verifies identities, actual author/reviewer participation and factual claims; technical owner separately approves markup changes and later revalidates the live page.
- Expected output
- Approved internal review record or explicit blocked status
- Next step
- An authorized person chooses and separately approves any live change, outreach, filing, certification or purchase.
- Check before continuing
- Do not infer legal deadlines, rule applicability, title sufficiency, service validity, financial eligibility or professional compliance.
What you’ll get
A list of differences by field, with the current value, evidence, proposed correction or missing fact, severity, and required human reviewer.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 12 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Input preparation checklist Collect the actual recipe inputs without inventing product export headers
- Synthetic example and expected result Exercise the important safety and data-quality boundary
- Approved entity facts template Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Setup and review checklist Use the original recipe with the provided preparation files
- Native input scaffold: author-entities.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: approved-entity-facts.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: validation-results.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: evidence-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input mapping and source requirements Exact legacy mappings, required additional evidence and source-bundle gates
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
Original Law Firm Agents adaptation · untested. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.