Generate a source-mapped SEO content brief
Build an editable writer brief that separates reader intent, evidence claims, official guidance, original contribution, limitations, and publishing checks.
No account or payment. The builder makes no network request with your field values; CSV and JSON files are created locally.
18
schema fields
4
official sources
5
stable assets
Evidence thesis
A brief should show where its requirements come from
A keyword and outline can organize a draft, but they do not explain which claims need evidence, which sources are admissible, what the page adds, or who checks it before publication. This builder records those decisions without treating them as a ranking forecast.
RankOps AI’s v1 content-brief builder separates 18 planning and publication fields into official-source-mapped requirements and disclosed editorial design choices, with an owner, validation method, and limitation recorded for every field.
Interactive worksheet
Build the brief
Complete the fields in reader order. You can export an unfinished worksheet, or load the synthetic example to see the intended level of detail.
Export this worksheet
Incomplete fields remain blank and keep their source metadata.
Canonical crosswalk
18-field source map
Every row identifies its owner, validation method, and limitation. Official-source-mapped means the field responds to public guidance; it does not mean the field is required or certified by a search engine.
| Field | Basis | Owner | Validation | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Page topicpage_topic | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: one planning object needs one bounded topic. | Editor | One concrete topic; no bundled keyword list. | A topic does not prove demand or ranking potential. |
Primary readerprimary_reader | Official-source-mapped Who the content is for; intended audience self-assessment. google-helpful-content | Editor | Names one reader role and relevant context. | This is a planning hypothesis until validated with real users. |
Reader taskreader_task | Official-source-mapped People-first purpose and whether readers leave with a satisfying result. google-helpful-content | Editor | Starts with an observable reader action or decision. | A stated task does not guarantee the page will satisfy it. |
Page goalpage_goal | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: separate the page outcome from the search query. | Content strategist | Defines one reader outcome and one editorial outcome. | The brief cannot forecast business or search performance. |
Search intent hypothesissearch_intent | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: intent is recorded as an editorial hypothesis. | SEO editor | Uses plain language and matches the reader task. | No live SERP analysis is performed or implied. |
Primary queryprimary_query | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: a working query is not an official requirement. | SEO editor | Contains one query, not volume, KD, or competitor claims. | The builder does not verify metrics, relevance, or competitiveness. |
Scope boundaryscope_boundary | Official-source-mapped Clear purpose, sufficient value, and avoiding unsupported expertise. google-helpful-content | Editor | States at least one inclusion and one exclusion. | Boundaries still require editorial and subject-matter review. |
Claims to supportkey_claims | Official-source-mapped Clear sourcing, expertise, accuracy, and trust self-assessment. google-helpful-content | Writer | Each line is a checkable claim, not a vague theme. | The builder does not fact-check or approve any claim. |
Admissible source plansource_plan | Official-source-mapped Sourcing and evidence of expertise or first-hand knowledge. google-helpful-content | Researcher | Names source classes, selection reasons, and recency needs. | A planned source is not a verified or accepted citation. |
Original contributionoriginal_contribution | Official-source-mapped Original information, reporting, research, analysis, or added value. google-helpful-content | Writer | Names a concrete contribution the team can produce. | Originality must be reviewed against the finished page. |
First-hand valuefirst_hand_value | Official-source-mapped First-hand expertise and the Who, How, and Why disclosure prompts. google-helpful-content | Subject owner | Identifies real access or says why it is not applicable. | Do not invent experience, credentials, tests, or observations. |
Author and review ownerauthor_review_owner | Official-source-mapped Who created the content and whether authorship is clear where expected. google-helpful-content | Managing editor | Names accountable roles without fictional credentials. | A named role does not establish expertise by itself. |
Citation plancitation_plan | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: claim-to-source adjacency is recorded explicitly. | Researcher | Every material claim has a source owner or unresolved marker. | This plan does not create, validate, or certify citations. |
Structure notesstructure_notes | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: the brief stays distinct from a rigid outline. | Editor | Sections follow the reader task and avoid duplicate jobs. | The writer may change structure when evidence requires it. |
Title and snippet plantitle_meta_plan | Official-source-mapped Descriptive titles, metadata, and words visible on the page. google-developer-guide | SEO editor | Title and summary describe the page without unsupported outcomes. | Search engines may display different titles or snippets. |
Internal link planinternal_link_plan | Official-source-mapped Crawlable links and discoverability guidance. google-developer-guide · bing-webmaster-guidelines | Publisher | Uses real destinations and descriptive link purposes. | The builder does not crawl the site or verify URLs. |
Technical publishing checkstechnical_publish_checks | Official-source-mapped Technical requirements, visible content, crawlability, links, and index controls. google-search-essentials · google-developer-guide · bing-webmaster-guidelines | Publisher | Checklist has an owner and a verifiable pass condition. | Passing checks cannot guarantee crawling, indexing, or ranking. |
Limitations and correctionslimitations_corrections | RankOps editorial design RankOps design choice: limitations and correction ownership stay in the handoff. | Managing editor | Names at least one limit and one correction route. | A corrections route does not guarantee factual or legal completeness. |
Synthetic worked example
The example plans a fictional publication’s corrections-policy page. It contains no customer data, private analytics, live keyword metrics, competitor findings, or performance result.
A fictional editorial team planning a public page about its corrections policy. No performance result, customer data, or live search evidence is used.
- Page topic
- How a small publication handles article corrections
- Primary reader
- Managing editor at a small independent publication
- Reader task
- Decide what a public corrections policy should explain and assign the people responsible for reviewing reports.
- Original contribution
- A decision table that routes factual errors, broken links, attribution concerns, and style edits to the appropriate review owner.
- Limitations and corrections
- This synthetic plan is not legal advice and does not establish factual completeness. The finished page should name a monitored correction contact and review owner.
Versioned downloads
Use the live buttons for your current entries, or download the stable v1 schema, empty template, source map, example, and limitations files.
Brief handoff checklist
Before a writer starts, verify that the brief can answer these handoff questions.
- One reader and one concrete task are named.
- Material claims have evidence owners.
- Sources are planned, not presented as already verified.
- The original contribution can be produced.
- Publishing checks have observable pass conditions.
- Limitations and a correction route are visible.
Evidence ledger
Citation claim → Evidence object → Reader page
Generate the worksheet, source map, example, CSV, JSON, and limitations from one versioned 18-field schema. Scope: The public v1 builder and its stable downloadable artifacts only. Status: validated. A source label explains provenance; it never certifies the resulting page.
Limitations, version, and corrections
This builder is a planning aid. It does not predict rankings, certify compliance, or verify the facts and sources entered by a user.
- This planning tool does not predict rankings, traffic, crawling, or indexing.
- It does not run live keyword research, SERP analysis, competitor analysis, or source verification.
- It does not fact-check user entries or establish legal, editorial, or search-engine compliance.
- Official-source mapping explains why a field is present; it is not Google or Bing approval.
- Editors remain responsible for sources, claims, authorship, publishing decisions, and corrections.
Schema version 1.0.0. Stable v1 asset URLs are preserved. Report a material issue through the Editorial Policy correction path.
Use the schema, keep the judgment
Prepare a writer handoff that shows its evidence work instead of hiding it.