Choose the decision the example should teach
Identify the difficult step in the guide before inventing a scenario. The example should let readers follow a decision or reproduce a calculation, not merely decorate the article with a success story. Write the question it answers and the specific evidence the reader will inspect. Leave unrelated business history out of the scenario.
Choose one of two evidence types: an authorized real case supported by records, or an explicitly hypothetical example. Do not blend invented inputs with a real company name in a way that suggests observed results. If a case cannot be substantiated or disclosed appropriately, a clearly fictional teaching scenario may serve the explanation better.
Declare assumptions next to the example
Label the example illustrative before its first substantive claim. State which inputs are assumed and which rules come from a verified source. If using numbers, explain their role and units. A made-up count can demonstrate arithmetic, but it cannot establish typical customer performance or a reliable forecast.
Use neutral fictional names and avoid fabricated testimonials, identities or credentials. Keep the label attached to any table or graphic likely to be shared separately. A small disclaimer at the bottom does not help a reader who encounters an isolated chart headed “client results.” The title and visual framing must agree with the evidence type.
Show the reasoning rather than just the ending
Walk through each relevant input, the rule applied and the resulting decision. Explain what would change if an assumption were different. Avoid adding extra precision that the teaching task does not need. Where the result is a classification rather than a measurement, describe the criterion instead of attaching an arbitrary performance percentage.
Google’s guidance emphasizes reliable content and transparency about how it was produced. Apply that to the example by distinguishing a demonstrated method from actual field evidence. Never describe a simulated outcome as a test you ran. If the guide relies on real measurements, retain the conditions and supporting records needed to interpret them.
Illustrative example: choosing what to review first
Suppose a fictional inventory has three findings: a broken link to a required form, an outdated screenshot in an optional guide and a spelling error in a heading. Assume the form is needed to complete the stated reader task. The example prioritizes checking and repairing access to that form, while recording the other two items for review. These are assumed inputs, not observed audit findings.
Explain the dependency: the form blocks the task in this scenario. If the link instead points to an obsolete optional attachment, the priority may change. The example teaches how task impact informs a review decision. It does not claim a measured traffic increase, revenue gain or universally correct order for every website.
Check that the framing survives publication
Read the title, caption, introduction and conclusion without the body. They should still make clear whether the example is real or hypothetical. Verify any calculation and ensure the conclusion follows from the declared assumptions. Ask a reviewer whether any phrasing implies a named customer, performed test or observed improvement that the evidence does not support.
Keep an example record containing its purpose, assumptions, source-dependent rules and revision date. An SEO audit can supply real findings for an authorized case, but its existence does not justify inventing outcomes. Revisit the example when its underlying rule changes, and preserve the distinction between teaching a process and proving a result.