Choose the source that can support the statement.

Write the claim before selecting the citation.

Separate the statement into its subject, the property or action asserted, and its conditions. “Google can crawl a link” is incomplete if the answer depends on the markup used. A more bounded statement identifies the kind of link and the relevant documentation.

Record the reader task as well. A source that explains a term may be suitable for a definition but insufficient for a recommendation about a specific product or business. Identify the decision the evidence must support before collecting links.

A citation belongs beside the claim it supports. A long source list at the bottom does not resolve which document establishes a particular number, limitation or technical requirement. Keep a passage locator in the working record so another reviewer can reproduce the check.

Distinguish original material, commentary and independence.

Original material comes from the origin of the fact or observation being examined: an official specification for a platform requirement, a company record for its own confirmed offer, or an original study for the study’s reported method and findings. Interpretive material interprets or reports other material. Its explanation can be useful, but inspect the controlling source when the claim depends on an exact requirement.

The same source can have different roles for different claims. A vendor is authoritative about what its documentation says; its comparison with competitors may need independent checking. An original study reports its own sample, not a universal result for every setting.

Independence concerns the source’s relationship to the subject, funding, incentives and underlying evidence. Two articles repeating one press release are not two independent observations. Record the common origin instead of treating the repeated wording as corroboration.

Do not reject all interpretive sources or accept all official sources automatically. Choose the evidence appropriate to the claim, identify interpretation as interpretation and keep contradictory material visible.

Worked example: a crawlable link claim.

Suppose an editor proposes: “Every clickable control is a crawlable Google link.” The claim is too broad. This lesson checks the wording against the official Google link documentation, accessed on 23 October 2026; this is a documentation comparison, not a crawler experiment.

The documentation explains the ordinary anchor element with an href attribute and gives examples of unsupported or unreliable substitutes. It does not establish that every control with a click handler supplies an extractable link.

A bounded replacement is: “Google’s documentation recommends an HTML anchor with an href that resolves to a web address for a crawlable link.” Keep the markup condition beside the statement. Do not extend the source to promise that the destination will be indexed or rank.

The source record names the page, the “Make your links crawlable” heading, access date, relevant markup condition and the unsupported extension. An industry article may help explain the example, but it does not replace the platform’s current markup guidance.

Keep a proportionate provenance record.

Useful fields are claim ID, exact wording, source owner and URL, passage locator, source date or version, access date, scope, interpretation, counterevidence, reviewer and decision state. Record missing evidence as missing rather than marking the claim accepted to close a row.

Quote only the wording needed for the explanation, identify its origin and preserve context. A citation does not itself give permission to reproduce an entire article, image or dataset. Where reuse rights or private records are unclear, obtain appropriate confirmation before publication.

Semantec SEO’s source and citation policy governs its own editorial work. The planning method taught here is general educational guidance; it does not assign that policy’s duties to every reader or create new business promises.