source-identity-clarity

What this datapoint measures

Visible publisher provenance and editorial standards. Whether each page makes clear who published it, when it was published, who authored it, what editorial standards apply. Whether the brand’s content visibly identifies itself as the brand’s content with proper attribution.

What high looks like

• Author bylines on editorial content with author identification
• Publication and modification dates visible
• Brand identity clear from page design and structure
• Editorial standards page accessible (about, editorial policy, fact-checking practices)
• Author bios with credentials
• Distinction between editorial and sponsored content where relevant

What low looks like

• Editorial content without bylines
• Publication dates missing or hidden
• Authorship ambiguous (no clear author or only generic “team” attribution)
• Editorial standards not documented
• Sponsored content not distinguished from editorial

What at floor looks like

A brand at floor on source-identity-clarity has content where authorship, dates, and editorial standards are unclear. AI systems cannot ground claims to specific authors or evaluate the brand’s editorial standards because both are obscured.

The remedy is editorial standard-setting and template work. Adding bylines to editorial content, surfacing publication dates, creating an editorial-standards page — these are typically straightforward but require editorial culture commitment.

What affects this datapoint

• Author bylines on editorial content
• Publication and modification dates
• Brand identity visible per page
• Editorial standards documentation
• Author bios and credentials
• Distinction between editorial and sponsored content

OMG actions that influence this datapoint

Action	Influence
O-3 Internal E-E-A-T & Authority Signals	Direct, primary. E-E-A-T work explicitly establishes source-identity discipline.
O-6 Content Audit & Baseline Optimization	Substantial. Audit surfaces gaps in source identity.

Multilingual considerations

Source-identity conventions vary by language community:

• English editorial conventions emphasize bylines and credentials prominently
• Japanese editorial conventions vary by publication type; corporate sites often emphasize organizational rather than individual authorship
• Indonesian, Korean, and Traditional Chinese have community-specific conventions

The underlying principle (clear source identification) applies across languages, but the visual conventions differ. Per-language editorial standards should match local expectations.

Common failure modes

• “By Editorial Team” or “By Admin” as default authorship without specific attribution
• Publication dates auto-set to the build date rather than actual publication
• Editorial standards page missing entirely
• Author bios that don’t establish credentials
• Sponsored content visually identical to editorial content

Diagnostic interpretation

Source-identity-clarity at floor with trust-signals (V3.2) also low indicates broad authority-signaling work needed. O-3 is the systemic remedy.

Source-identity-clarity at low with content-depth at high indicates a brand with substantive content but weak source attribution. O-3 lifts the datapoint without requiring new content production.

---