# Content refresh cadence for SEO, AEO and GEO. - working worksheet

Reviewed alongside the Eli guide: https://hireeli.io/resources/content-refresh-cadence-ai-search

## Decision to make

Refresh pages from evidence rather than a fixed rewriting quota

Owner: ____________________
Review date: ____________________
Canonical page or destination: ____________________

## Buyer questions

- [ ] Content refresh cadence for SEO, AEO and GEO?
- [ ] What should a B2B startup do first to refresh pages from evidence rather than a fixed rewriting quota?
- [ ] Which evidence shows that refresh pages from evidence rather than a fixed rewriting quota is working?
- [ ] What is the most common mistake when teams try to refresh pages from evidence rather than a fixed rewriting quota?

## Evidence-led work plan

### 1. Why this decision appears: teams change dates and reorder sentences on a calendar while factual decay

Teams change dates and reorder sentences on a calendar while factual decay, search demand and buyer questions remain unexamined.

Evidence or artifact: ____________________
Status: [ ] not started  [ ] working  [ ] verified  [ ] blocked

### 2. Prioritize refreshes when claims, products, sources, intent, performance or AI citations materially change

Prioritize refreshes when claims, products, sources, intent, performance or AI citations materially change.

Evidence or artifact: ____________________
Status: [ ] not started  [ ] working  [ ] verified  [ ] blocked

### 3. Monitor claim and source freshness, then inspect search and provider-level changes

Monitor claim and source freshness.

Evidence or artifact: ____________________
Status: [ ] not started  [ ] working  [ ] verified  [ ] blocked

### 4. Measure track correction speed

Track correction speed, recovered usefulness, citation observations and qualified actions without assuming causality.

Evidence or artifact: ____________________
Status: [ ] not started  [ ] working  [ ] verified  [ ] blocked

### 5. Do not cross this boundary: changing a date without substantive review misleads readers and does not create useful freshness

Changing a date without substantive review misleads readers and does not create useful freshness.

Evidence or artifact: ____________________
Status: [ ] not started  [ ] working  [ ] verified  [ ] blocked

## Source ledger

- [ ] Google Search Central: optimizing for generative AI features: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide
- [ ] Google Search Central: people-first content guidance: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
- [ ] Reddit Help: spam policy: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043504051-Spam
- [ ] OpenAI: publishers and developers FAQ: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12627856-publishers-and-developers-faq

## Measurement boundary

Baseline date and exact context: ____________________
7-day observation: ____________________
14-day observation: ____________________
30-day observation: ____________________
Known limitations: ____________________

Keep technical eligibility, citations, recommendations, visits, leads and revenue as separate evidence. This worksheet does not guarantee an external ranking or commercial result.