Semantec SEO Start a project

Workflow evidence learning

Keep project scope, artifacts and accepted state in one manifest

A project manifest is the maintained index of project identity, scope, sources, page inventory, requested deliverables, artifact versions, dependencies, approvals and release state. It explains what is accepted and what still needs evidence.

Use it when files, pages, modules and contributors make the current state difficult to reconstruct from conversation history. Keep a structured record and a synchronized readable summary that point to the same reviewed versions.

Read the matching manifest and summary

By · Published by Semantec SEO

A planning folio with task cards, source notes and an amber hold tab.
Index the project, source records and artifact states together.
An open folio holding source notes and page instructions beside an owner badge and checklist.
One maintained revision connects structured fields with an accountable handoff.

Use one logical record for accepted project state

A manifest is an index of project identity, scope, sources, artifacts, dependencies, review and release state. It points to the evidence and versions behind those decisions. It does not replace the source files or turn an unreviewed artifact into an accepted one.

Define the project and its boundaries

Record the site or project identity, market, language, objective, requested outputs, page inventory and exclusions. Name the accountable approval owner and the state of the allowed action. A clear boundary prevents an omitted page or external dependency from disappearing during delivery.

Identify versions explicitly

Give each source bundle, module output, page, plugin, package and review record a stable ID and version. Record paths, checksums and provenance relationships where appropriate. A recent modification time can belong to an experiment or failed repair; it is not evidence that the file is the current accepted version.

Keep states separate

Content approval, evidence freshness, file integrity, package acceptance, import permission and public release are different decisions. Record blockers and dependencies beside the relevant item. A project summary should not compress those states into one misleading “done” label.

Keep human and structured views synchronized

Use one maintained manifest revision to produce or reconcile both views. A structured record can be JSON; a readable summary can explain what is accepted, missing and next. Two independently edited summaries need an explicit reconciliation process before either is used as the current authority.

Read one manifest excerpt and its matching summary

This hypothetical project plans fifty pages, a plugin, a content package, QA files and release controls. The reduced M3 example below includes only two artifact records to explain the structure; it is not a complete inventory or a delivered project. IDs, paths and states are invented, and no files or checksums have been observed.

The null checksum values deliberately record missing data. They do not mean integrity has passed. PageA version 2 is the candidate under review, while PageA version 1 remains the last recorded accepted version in the retained history. Draft import approval is not recorded, and public release is not authorized.

{
  "manifest_revision": "M3", "project_id": "P1",
  "scope": {"planned_pages": 50, "market": "Example Market", "language": "en", "example_excerpt": true},
  "source_bundle": {"id": "S1", "version": "1", "state": "accepted"},
  "artifacts": [
    {"id": "PageA", "version": "2", "path": "drafts/page-a-v2.html",
     "checksum_algorithm": "sha256", "checksum": null, "state": "awaiting_review",
     "depends_on": ["S1:1"], "last_accepted": "PageA:1"},
    {"id": "PluginA", "version": "1", "path": "package/plugin-a.php",
     "checksum_algorithm": "sha256", "checksum": null, "state": "awaiting_integrity_check",
     "depends_on": ["S1:1"]}
  ],
  "draft_import_approval": {"state": "not_recorded"},
  "public_release": {"state": "not_authorized"},
  "open_items": [
    {"id": "Q1", "record": "PageA:2", "issue": "narrow layout review missing", "owner": "QA"}
  ],
  "resume": {
    "phase": "artifact_integrity_and_render_review", "owner": "release_owner",
    "requires": ["capture missing checksums", "review PageA:2"]
  }
}
Human summary of the same M3 example; each statement refers to the displayed record
RecordCurrent meaningNext action
Scope and sourceProject P1 plans 50 pages for Example Market in English. This displayed record is an excerpt. Source bundle S1 version 1 is assumed accepted.Register every governed artifact in the full manifest before project closeout; this partial example cannot establish inventory completeness.
PageA version 2The displayed PageA version 2 candidate depends on S1:1. It awaits review and has no captured checksum. The last recorded accepted version is PageA:1.Capture the candidate’s checksum and complete the missing review of the narrow layout. Retain the earlier accepted record rather than selecting whichever file was modified last.
PluginA version 1The displayed PluginA version 1 candidate depends on S1:1 and awaits an integrity check. Its checksum is missing.Locate the exact file, perform the required integrity and compatibility checks, then record the observed result and reviewer.
Action and resume stateDraft import approval is not recorded. Public release is not authorized. Resume at artifact integrity and render review, owned by the release owner.Resolve the stated missing checksums and PageA:2 review, then obtain the decision appropriate to the intended action. Completion of these checks does not itself create release authority.

The paths are illustrative references, not working links or deliverable files. In a real manifest, the retained history must make PageA:1 retrievable, and each source or artifact pointer must resolve to the version claimed. The readable summary must identify the same manifest revision and preserve the structured record’s blockers.

Register the evidence and dependencies that make the state usable

Create the manifest when the project starts, before analysis and production generate competing files. Add governed items as they appear and retain their relationships. A list of filenames alone cannot explain which source an output used or which approval a release still needs.

Two reference binders beside page drafts and a separate paper record held by an amber clip.
Make missing sources, incomplete artifacts and unresolved dependencies explicit.
  • Project identity and scope Keep site, market, language, objective, page inventory, exclusions and accountable owner together. Record requested deliverables and explicitly unresolved external work.
  • Source and artifact inventory Register inputs, outputs, versions, paths, checksums, source pointers and the relationship between them. Identify the exact artifact to which an approval or test applies.
  • State and dependency summary Record module, page, evidence, approval and release states with their blockers. Name the predecessor state each downstream item consumes and the owner who can resolve it.
  • Evidence, scope and review Retain observation dates, source versions, applicable market or release, effective periods and uncertainty. A checksum identifies bytes relative to a reference; it does not establish factual truth, review quality or authority to publish.
  • Closeout and resume point List delivered files, final required checks, unresolved evidence and the exact phase, owner and missing input for continuing. A supported partial delivery can be useful when its limits are explicit; it is not a completed release.
Two navy archive boxes beside an unnumbered clock and blank record card.
Retain accepted versions and the exact state from which work can resume.

Update the record after material changes and verify closeout

When a source, page, package or approval changes, record the new version and mark the dependencies that need review. Keep the former accepted version and its rationale. Do not overwrite history or choose a current artifact by timestamp alone.

  1. Record each material change. Update the artifact or decision version, its source pointers and the reason for the change. Preserve the former state and any superseded approval or test.
  2. Reconcile concurrent contributions. Compare the base manifest revision before accepting another contributor’s update. Resolve contradictory states and pointers with the accountable owner instead of letting the last edit silently replace a reviewed decision.
  3. Revalidate affected relationships. Mark outputs stale when their accepted input changes. Reopen relevant file, source, content, integration or release checks and retain unrelated accepted work when the dependency record supports it.
  4. Check the deliverable against the index. Confirm every required artifact is present, retrievable and parseable where applicable. Compare its checksum and version with the manifest, then check that the recorded acceptance refers to that same artifact and scope.
  5. Deliver a synchronized summary and next route. Use the same manifest revision for the structured record and readable summary. State the accepted outputs, unresolved dependencies, allowed next action and exact resume phase. An integrity pass alone does not make an unapproved package ready for public release.

Completeness and integrity require different checks. An accurately hashed file can still be the wrong artifact, contain unsupported content or belong to an incomplete package. Conversely, a manifest can list all expected names while the files are missing or mismatched. Review the inventory, file state, provenance and approvals together.

Questions about project manifests

Is the newest file the current accepted version?

Not necessarily. Use an explicit version, acceptance record and evidence pointer. Modification time alone cannot distinguish an approved deliverable from an experiment, failed repair or automatically regenerated file.

Does a checksum prove that a file is correct?

It helps compare the exact bytes with a recorded reference. It does not establish factual accuracy, completeness, compatibility or release approval. Keep those checks and their evidence separate.

Must the readable summary contain every technical field?

It can summarize the decision, but it should identify the same manifest revision and preserve the accepted state, blockers, allowed next action and resume point. The structured record remains available for detailed provenance.

Can delivery close with unresolved work?

A bounded partial delivery can identify the supported outputs and unresolved dependencies, with an accountable owner and exact resume phase. Do not label missing required work as accepted or imply that partial closeout authorizes public release.

Does a complete manifest guarantee SEO outcomes?

No. It makes project state and delivery evidence inspectable. It does not guarantee indexing, rankings, search features, traffic or conversions.

Related decisions and source reading

The JSON and summary are a hypothetical application record, not an external manifest standard or an observed project delivery. Missing values and partial coverage are explicit blockers to the relevant checks. A structured file, checksum or summary does not replace source review, acceptance evidence or release authority.