These are the questions customers actually ask.

That is the right question to ask, and the honest answer is that it depends entirely on what goes in. Generic AI writing is recognisable because it has no first-hand experience in it — no cases, no numbers, no opinions that could only come from you. We start from a recorded conversation with you and build from what you actually said, so the specifics that make writing look human are present because they are real. Where we cannot source a claim from you, we leave it out rather than fill the gap with plausible padding.

Yes. Every post traces back to its sources — the passage in your conversation, the page on your site, or the citation it came from. You can see why each claim is there before you approve it.

Your first-hand experience, which is the one input a competitor cannot copy and a generic tool cannot fabricate. A post that says "we have run this material for decades and it warps if you store it damp" cannot be written by anyone who has not done it. That is what we extract from you and what the rest of the pipeline is built to protect.

You are the human, and nothing publishes without you. On our side, real people run onboarding and stay reachable for the account — you are not talking to a wall of automation when something needs a decision.

Agents do the drafting, organised as named roles — research, strategy, writing, editing, SEO. You review the output. The value is not that a machine wrote it; it is that the machine started from your expertise instead of from the open internet.

That is the failure mode we design against. One customer called an early draft "search engine fodder" — a section written around a phrase that had nothing to do with what his product actually is. That draft did not ship. The rule that came out of it: the post is the phone call written down, and nothing is claimed that the product cannot do.

No, and they should not. Uniform length across every post is one of the clearest signals that content was produced mechanically. Length follows the subject and the author — some questions take four hundred words and some take a thousand.

For people, on the assumption that search rewards the same thing. A page that genuinely answers the question is what both a reader and an answer engine are looking for. We do not write for a keyword density target.

You reject it and say why. That correction is captured and applied to the next draft, so the same problem does not come back. Several of the rules in the system today exist because a customer sent something back.

Yes. Anything you have already written is the strongest possible input — existing posts, newsletters, even long emails. We read them for sentence length, vocabulary, structure and the things you refuse to say, and build a voice profile from it.

From a recorded conversation. Most people who have not written much have still explained their work out loud thousands of times. One call is usually enough to derive how you construct an explanation, which is what actually carries voice.

We work from what you give us — your site, your writing, and your recorded conversation. If you want public posts included as voice input, you can point us at them.

Yes, and they should. One voice profile per author. A partner who writes in long, discursive sentences should not be flattened into a house style, because readers who know them will notice immediately.

Whoever the post is written as. Attribution is part of the credibility of the page, so the named author should be the person whose experience the post draws on — and they should be willing to stand behind it.

Yes. Drafts are editable as normal text — change a word, cut a paragraph, rewrite a heading.

That is the intent — corrections feed the voice profile so the same fix is not needed twice.

Send it back. That is a legitimate rejection and one of the most useful signals you can give, because it usually points at a rule that has not been captured yet.

Every factual claim traces to something — your own words from the conversation, a page on your site, or an external citation. If a claim cannot be sourced, it is meant to be cut rather than published on the strength of sounding right.

You catch it at review and reject the draft, which is exactly what happened on one of our medical accounts — the physician spotted a clinical error in a draft and sent it back before anything went live. That is the review gate doing its job. It is also why nothing auto-publishes.

It should not, and unsourced numbers are the thing to look hardest at during review. If you see a figure you did not supply and cannot trace, treat it as a defect and reject it.

Only ones you supply. We do not generate efficacy, safety, dosage or outcome claims from general knowledge. If a claim is needed and you have not provided it, the sentence should be written without it and flagged for you.

You are. You approve every post before it goes live, and the byline is yours. We build the draft and show our sources; the publishing decision is yours to make.

Yes — your site is read during analysis and is one of the primary sources a draft is grounded in. It is also why an out-of-date site produces out-of-date drafts.

No. Nothing goes live until you publish it. Approving a draft marks it ready; it does not push it to your site.

No. Approval and publishing are deliberately separate steps, precisely so a batch review does not accidentally push forty posts onto a live site.

Either works. Publishing as you go gets pages indexed sooner; holding a batch lets you sequence them. What you should not do is publish a hundred posts on one day — a sudden flood reads as automated to both readers and search engines.

Most reviews are a few minutes per post once the voice profile has settled — you are checking specifics and judgement calls, not rewriting. Early posts take longer because that is when you are teaching it.

Yes. Several customers have an assistant do a first pass on obvious things — names, titles, cross-references — and reserve the expert review for the parts only they can judge.

Yes, publishing can be spaced rather than done all at once.

Yes. It is your site and your content.

With what people actually search for in your category, and which of those questions your site currently has no answer for. That gap list is the content plan. Most sites we analyse are missing pages for questions their buyers ask constantly.

A post gets found because it answers a question someone typed, is on a site search can read, and is linked from elsewhere on that site. Publishing alone is not distribution — which is why the plan targets specific queries rather than producing posts on general topics.

Yes. Topic selection starts from real query data and competitive gaps, not from a brainstorm.

Yes — both, plus how strong the pages currently ranking are. A high-volume query you cannot realistically win is worth less than a specific one you can own.

Yes. What is worth targeting depends on how strong your domain is — a new site and an established one should not chase the same queries.

Internal linking is part of how a set of posts is built, so related posts reference each other rather than sitting as orphans.

Where it reads naturally. A headline stuffed with a keyword at the cost of sounding human is a bad trade — it wins a ranking signal and loses the click.

SEO is about ranking a page in a list of links. AEO — answer engine optimisation — is about being the source an AI assistant quotes when it answers the question directly. It rewards pages that answer one question cleanly and cite their sources, which increasingly is where the traffic decision happens before anyone sees a list of links at all.

Longer than anyone selling you SEO usually admits. Indexing takes days to weeks; ranking movement on anything competitive takes months. What you can see immediately is coverage — questions your buyers ask that you now have an answer for and did not before.

It changes what you should target, not whether it works. A small site wins specific questions rather than broad ones, and specificity is exactly what a small expert business has more of than a large competitor.

From your site, your buyers and the query gaps between them. The output is a plan you can argue with — you see why each topic is on the list before anything is written.

They are generated, but yours are better. Customers who send us a half-formed idea consistently get the strongest posts, because the idea carries something only they would know.

Yes, at any point, in as little detail as a sentence.

Yes, and you should. A rough paragraph in your own words is more useful than a detailed brief, because it carries your phrasing as well as your point.

Those are often the best posts you can publish. One physician pitched a piece arguing a treatment is well suited to a season most practices steer people away from. A generic tool would never propose that, and it is exactly the kind of first-hand position competitors cannot copy — provided the reasoning is yours.

It is not tied to one platform. Posts can be published into a CMS or hosted and embedded into your existing site, which is what customers on locked-down or bespoke sites use.

Yes — including by embedding, which avoids fighting the template. One customer runs exactly this setup.

Yes. This adds pages to the site you have; it does not replace it. Your existing pages are also the primary source the drafts are grounded in.

No, and you should be sceptical of anyone who tells you otherwise as a precondition.

Embedded posts inherit your page styling so they read as part of your site rather than as a bolted-on subdomain.

That is the common case, and it is why the setup is done with you on a call rather than handed over as instructions. Several customers lost their web person and had no one to ask.

For embedding, a single snippet on the page where you want the blog to appear. Nothing else.

Yes. It is published under your name on your site.

That is usually the highest-value thing on the account. One customer had clients sitting on a hundred and thirty episodes that had never reached their websites — the work already existed, it just was not in a form search could read.

Yes. The transcript is the raw material, and it is already in your voice because you spoke it.

No — and this is a rule one customer insisted on. The post has to stand on its own as something worth reading, with the video available inside it rather than announced in the title. A post that only makes sense if you watch the video is not a post.

Yes. Loading genuine older material — past newsletters, prior write-ups — is a reasonable way to avoid launching a blog whose entire history began this week.

They stay. Existing posts are read as voice input, and older ones can be revisited if they target something worth ranking for.

They benefit from one. The more useful question is which kind — a real photograph of your work usually outperforms anything generated.

Yes, and you should where you have them. One customer pointed out that a generated image gives away the whole article — readers see it, conclude the piece is machine-made, and read the text differently from that point. Your own photograph does the opposite.

The single image at the top of a post, before the text. It is the first thing a reader reacts to and the image most likely to be pulled into a search result or a social preview.

They constrain what generated imagery may contain. Faces are the hardest thing for image generation to make convincing, so restricting to hands, tools or environments often produces a more credible picture than a generated person.

Only with documented permission from the person pictured, which is your responsibility to hold. In regulated fields this is a consent requirement, not a preference.

Yes, and it is one of the highest-return habits available to you. One customer described the loop plainly: the newsletter becomes a blog post, the blog post becomes a newsletter, and generated content fills the gaps between.

Posts can be adapted for social. Treat it as adaptation rather than reposting — a paragraph lifted unchanged into LinkedIn reads like a paragraph lifted unchanged.

Distribution is not fully automated today, and we would rather say so than imply a button that does not exist.

No. It produces the substance they distribute. The customers who get the most from this have someone handling social, and give them better raw material to work with.

Your website, one recorded conversation, and access to publish where you want posts to appear. That is the minimum, and the conversation is the part that matters most.

Review time, which is minutes per post rather than hours. The work being removed is the blank page and the research, which is where the hours actually went.

No. Several of our most successful accounts belong to people who describe this as outside their wheelhouse. The expertise we need from you is your subject, not your tooling.

No — connecting analytics and search tools is done with you on a call. Customers routinely have someone else screen-share and drive it.

Yes. Without it there is no way to see which queries you are actually appearing for, which means no way to judge whether any of this is working.

We set it up during onboarding so you are not troubleshooting a signup form on your own.

Pricing depends on volume and how much is done for you. Talk to us and we will quote against what you actually need rather than a tier you have to grow into.

Yes. We analyse your site live and you keep the findings, whether or not you go further.

Ask us directly and we will tell you the terms before you commit to anything.

An agency gives you an account manager who has to learn your subject, and usually a writer further removed still. The constraint we are removing is different — it is that the only person who genuinely knows the subject is the person who has no time to write. We are not trying to replace craft; we are trying to make your expertise publishable without costing you your evenings.

Ask us for current status before you assume it in a procurement process. We would rather answer this precisely than claim a certification on a marketing page.

Prefer delegated access wherever the platform supports it — added as a user rather than handed a shared password. Where a platform makes that hard, customers sometimes share credentials, and you should rotate them afterwards.

It is used to build your voice profile and ground your content. It is your material.

Your account. Drafts are not published anywhere until you publish them.

No. Nobody can, and an outfit that does is telling you something about themselves.

No. We do not offer regulatory certification, medical review or legal sign-off, and nothing in the product provides them. Health is the worst possible place to overstate, so we state this rather than let it be assumed.

No. It removes the drafting bottleneck. Judgement, positioning and the decision about what is worth saying stay with people.

No, and we treat it as a defect when a draft does. A customer once rejected a section that framed his material as belonging to a market it has nothing to do with — that draft was wrong, and the rule that came from it is that nothing is claimed the product cannot actually do.