---
name: verify-rank-math-score-above-70-on-every-page
description: "Use the SEO score to find useful fixes. Keep facts and clear writing ahead of points."
category: Website QA Audit
stage: —
definitive_article: /website-qa-audit
status: complete
---

# Verify Rank Math score above 70 on every page

An SEO score can help you spot things to check. This guide helps you use it without adding weak words just for points. Start with what each page is for and what the live page really shows.

**The path:** Page purpose → Actual plugin tests → Useful corrections → Score and page evidence.

**Use this when:** A WordPress site that uses Rank Math needs its in-scope on-page test results reviewed against the house target.

## Inputs
- The exact published post/page set and actual supported Rank Math version/integration.
- Editor read access for scores/tests and authorized content/metadata edits.
- Each page’s intended reader/topic, source facts and current house standard.
- A per-page report with actual score, failed tests, editor limitations and public evidence.

## First-run prompt

> Use the supplied Rank Math site and page scope. Capture actual scores and failed tests, make authorized changes that help the reader and match source facts, and document conflicts or tooling gaps. Verify public content separately and do not treat a score as proof of ranking or full QA.

## Steps
1. Confirm the site actually uses Rank Math and that its supported editor can read these pages. Do not install or replace an SEO plugin solely to generate a score for a read-only audit.
2. Collect the current score and test details for every scoped page, including a no-score state. An unreadable builder body or absent score is a specific tooling gap, not automatically poor live content.
3. Record the legacy house threshold as at least 70/100 where it applies. Rank Math’s own color bands and tests may differ. The score is neither Google’s grade nor a complete site-health or semantic-certification score.
4. Check that the selected focus topic reflects the actual page and supporting search evidence when available. Do not invent demand or choose a meaningless phrase that happens to earn points.
5. Review each failed test against the maintained guidelines and current platform rules. Fix a misleading title or genuinely useful missing link. Do not pad word count, stuff keywords into image alt text, invent an experience or force an external link to win points.
6. Record justified exceptions where a plugin test conflicts with the page role, accessibility or facts. A concise contact page need not become a long article. A high score cannot override failed proof, wrong identity, unreadable layout or a broken lead path.
7. Apply authorized meaningful corrections in the supported source, recheck the plugin result and verify the actual canonical metadata/content. Do not assume a green editor score proves the changed page is publicly served.
8. Save scores and useful corrections separately from unresolved exceptions. The task is a documented on-page review; a promise to loop until every URL reaches a number would hide legitimate conflicts and tooling gaps.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

- [ ] Actual scores/test details and unavailable states are recorded for the stated scope.
- [ ] The at-least-70 house target is distinct from Google outcomes and plugin color bands.
- [ ] Corrections improve the actual page without proof fabrication, padding or accessibility damage.
- [ ] Below-target justified exceptions remain visible; high scores do not overrule substantive failures.
- [ ] Canonical content and plugin values are checked separately after edits.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example — no plugin score was read.** Maple Cycle’s contact page has a sample score of 68. The plugin wants more text and the focus phrase in every image description. Its current phone, hours and contact instructions are clear.

The reviewer fixes a genuinely misleading title but records why padding the contact page or stuffing a decorative image’s alt text is wrong. If the score remains below the house target, the report keeps the exception visible. It does not claim Google failed the page or fabricate extra copy to cross 70.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

The content owner receives useful fixes and exact scoring exceptions. [Configure supported search metadata](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=step-14a-configure-rankmath-seo-plugin#task-step-14a-configure-rankmath-seo-plugin) addresses setup defects when that is the actual next need.

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 publication or after material content/plugin changes. A score monitor requires a configured job; it must not rewrite pages indefinitely to game a threshold.

## 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: [Verify Rank Math score above 70 on every page](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=verify-rank-math-score-above-70-on-every-page#task-verify-rank-math-score-above-70-on-every-page)
- Writing standard: [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/)
- [Website QA Audit](https://blitzmetrics.com/website-qa-audit/)
- [Rank Math post tests](https://rankmath.com/kb/score-100-in-tests/)
- [Google title links](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/title-link)
- [Google snippets](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/snippet)
- [W3C image text alternatives](https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/)

## 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.
- Actual current plugin results, builder compatibility and canonical content evidence require the site.