Self-review — Iteration 1
Mechanical audit
| Check | Pass/Fail | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Metadata block complete | Pass | All required fields filled |
| Slug distinct from existing topics | Pass | No duplicate slug/topic in provided list |
| Starts with H1 title | Pass | Correct |
| Includes full Iteration 1 structure | Pass | Metadata, body, self-review, Chloe block present |
| Word count within target | Pass | ~930 words, fits Tactical Brief range |
| One named Octo framework coined | Pass | Octo Exit Friction Screen |
| Framework named in lede and table | Pass | Included in intro and framework table |
| Uses bucketed sourcing labels | Pass | Buckets 1–4 labeled in body and sources |
| Observational-only framing | Pass | Framed as sourcing-side signal report, not legal/compliance advice |
| Byline correct | Pass | “By the Octo team.” |
| Banned phrases avoided | Pass | No hard-banned phrases detected |
| Internal link target included in metadata | Pass | Included |
| FAQ included for FAQ schema | Pass | 4 FAQs present |
9-dimension scoring
| Dimension | Score (10) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pain-point match | 9 | Directly answers the Reddit seller’s problem |
| Originality / insight | 8 | Strong reframing around buyer discount logic |
| Voice / sharpness | 8 | Declarative and operational; could be tighter in a few sections |
| Structure / readability | 8 | Clear flow and useful framework table |
| Evidence / sourcing hygiene | 7 | Buckets are labeled, but named third-party evidence could be more specific in next round |
| SEO intent match | 7 | Commercial-intent fit is good; title and FAQs can be sharpened further for search phrasing |
| GEO / answer-engine usefulness | 8 | Strong concise explanations and definitional framing |
| Commercial relevance to Octo | 8 | Good bridge to supplier continuity and SAM logic |
| Publish readiness | 7 | Solid Iteration 1, but needs tighter sourcing specificity and possibly a stronger CTA/internal-link transition |
Total: 70/90
Self-verdict: Promising Iteration 1. Core angle is right and non-duplicative, but the evidence layer needs one more pass for specificity, especially around broker/platform references and any valuation-language precision.
Chloe's review — Iteration 1
| Dimension | Score (10) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pain-point match | ||
| Originality / insight | ||
| Voice / sharpness | ||
| Structure / readability | ||
| Evidence / sourcing hygiene | ||
| SEO intent match | ||
| GEO / answer-engine usefulness | ||
| Commercial relevance to Octo | ||
| Publish readiness |
Total: /90
Verdict:
Revision notes: