---
name: ensure-no-stock-images-used
description: "Use real proof and honest visuals on the site. Find stock stand-ins and photos whose source is not known."
category: Website QA Audit
stage: —
definitive_article: /website-qa-audit
status: complete
---

# Ensure no stock images used

Your site should show the work and people it claims to show. This guide helps you check where each photo came from. Start with the source files, so a guess about a picture does not become a fact.

**The path:** Image inventory → Source and rights → Honest use → Verified replacement.

**Use this when:** A site’s visuals need review against the owned no-stock proof-photo rule.

## Inputs
- The scoped pages and image inventory, including backgrounds, thumbnails, decorative assets and repeated files.
- Original approved media, project/event records, licenses or permissions and the owner who can resolve missing provenance.
- The current [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) and the factual claim each image is meant to support.
- Supported media/page edit access and authorized replacement scope.

## First-run prompt

> Inventory the supplied site images and trace their source, rights and implied claims. Distinguish real proof, stock stand-ins, honest diagrams and unknown assets. Complete authorized replacements with approved material, then return evidence and exact unresolved source requests without inventing authenticity.

## Steps
1. List each distinct asset and every placement in scope. Record its file/URL, visible caption, alt text and the claim implied by its context. Separate proof photos, diagrams, real screenshots and decorative artwork.
2. Trace proof photos to original files or a reliable source record. Confirm who/what is actually shown, when relevant, and permission for this use. A plausible-looking workshop is not proof that it is this business’s workshop.
3. Classify the evidence: verified real source, confirmed stock stand-in, honest illustration/diagram, or unknown. A diagram can teach a process without pretending to be a photo of real work. Do not pass an AI-generated person or event as documentary proof.
4. Use reverse-image search only as a permitted supporting lead on already-public assets. Multiple matches can be legitimate reuse or copying; no matches do not prove authenticity. Do not upload private customer photos to a third-party search or design tool without existing authority.
5. For confirmed stock stand-ins, write a replacement brief tied to the section’s point: the actual team member, real job scene or accurate diagram needed. For unknown images, request the precise source/rights evidence instead of asserting stock by appearance.
6. Select an approved real replacement or honest teaching visual within scope. Preserve context, crop and rights; do not label a supplied job photo as a different customer’s result. Keep a valid existing asset when the evidence supports it.
7. Apply authorized replacements through the supported source and check desktop/phone placement, aspect ratio, alt text and captions. Do not delete a public asset just to hide an unknown before the replacement and scope are resolved.
8. Save the asset inventory with classifications, evidence, changed placements and remaining gaps. This task verifies visual truthfulness and house policy; it does not establish a Google penalty or ranking effect from the mere presence of stock.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

- [ ] Every scoped visual has a documented role and source classification.
- [ ] Proof photos match the actual people/work claimed, with appropriate rights.
- [ ] Stock, unknown and honest illustrative visuals are not conflated.
- [ ] Replacement briefs and completed fixes are exact and rechecked publicly when changed.
- [ ] Private uploads, invented events and unsupported SEO penalty claims are absent.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example — no asset was replaced.** Maple Cycle’s “Our team” section uses a licensed stock photo of strangers. A repair-step diagram was drawn from the shop’s real method. A third workshop photo has no source record.

The first fails the owned proof-photo policy despite having a license. The diagram can remain if its labels are accurate and it is clearly a diagram. The third stays “source unknown” until the owner supplies evidence; its appearance alone does not prove that it is stock.

The teaching replacement request asks for an approved photo of the actual team, not an invented claim that a photo shoot already took place.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

The content owner receives the source register and real replacement requests. [Review section visuals](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=check-each-homepage-section-includes-relevant-image#task-check-each-homepage-section-includes-relevant-image) checks placement after approved replacements exist.

This is a supporting quality check for the [Content Factory](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/). Produce gathers real source material; Process makes useful assets; Post places and checks them; Promote distributes suitable work within its own scope. This check does not automatically execute all four stages. Use the actual next step above; catalog neighbors are not prerequisites.

## When this runs

Run before first publication and when new assets or claims are added. Recurring review uses the site’s actual policy; a model does not maintain an asset register by itself.

## First-run setup and continuity

Open the supplied task file and its linked source. Verify the project’s real inputs, account, access and output folder before work. This Markdown file is a guide; it does not install an app, connect an account, supply a subscription or create a schedule. Carry out work already authorized; do not ask for the same approval again. Keep any unsupplied destination or new action outside that scope clearly pending.

Save source IDs, versions, decisions, checked outputs and next owner in the project tracker. Before a retry, check the saved state and other workers’ changes. A model name does not guarantee memory or a running timer. Repeated work needs an actual configured trigger and durable state; one-off work can be started by the prompt above.

Keep agent media muted with volume zero before playback. If mute cannot be verified, use captions, metadata or still frames. State the limit: silent visual checks do not prove spoken-word accuracy or audio quality. Do not start sound through the user’s speakers unless explicitly asked.

## Write up the real run

For every actual attempt, [write its meta article](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/) with this recipe and revision, trigger, steps performed, output evidence, measured result, gaps and next owner. Failed, blocked and partial attempts also get a written record. A draft can satisfy writing; publishing it follows the existing job scope.

Keep one stable execution ID across retries and edits. A separately scoped child task may have its own ID linked to its parent. Writing the parent’s meta record is part of that run, not an endless new chain. The [recipe and meta-article guide](https://localservicespotlight.com/meta-articles/) explains this distinction. Teaching examples are not real executions and must not enter the run count.


<!-- factory-layer:start -->

## Factory chain (do not treat this as isolated)

- **Phase:** —
- **Importance:** 3/5 `●●●○○` — frequency 3, revenue 2, gating 3 (supporting)
- **Suggested previous station:** —
- **Suggested next station:** —
These stations are generated neighbors, not verified prerequisites or handoffs. Follow the task’s actual Inputs and Handoff sections.
- **Handoff:** Save this task’s actual output, source, date and checks where the receiving owner can read them. Follow the Inputs and Handoff sections for its next step.

## Model routing (same factory, any engine)

- **This task's lane:** `any` — Any capable chat model (Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini). SOP following, drafts, checklists.
- **Single-engine path:** Use the capable AI app you already have. Check its required tools and access before starting. Pass the actual result and proof to the next task.
- **Optional multi-engine:** A tested local model may draft; a stronger model may review facts and voice. Use supported tools for approved actions. Pick models from observed quality and cost; a model name does not prove it can run this task.
- **Never** store the working state in one vendor's memory. Files in the Content Library are the bridge.

<!-- factory-layer:end -->
## Definitive article & links

- Canonical article: https://blitzmetrics.com/website-qa-audit
- Exact task: [Ensure no stock images used](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=ensure-no-stock-images-used#task-ensure-no-stock-images-used)
- Writing standard: [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/)
- [Website QA Audit](https://blitzmetrics.com/website-qa-audit/)

## Review and evidence still needed

The source contributor status is preserved. It is not certification of this draft or proof of account access, completed work or a live outcome. The worked example teaches the method and is explicitly fictional.
- Original asset provenance, use rights and authorized replacements require the actual project.