---
name: verify-testimonials-with-full-attribution
description: "Check who said each quote and where it came from. Hold praise that lacks the facts readers need."
category: Website QA Audit
stage: —
definitive_article: /website-qa-audit
status: complete
---

# Verify testimonials with full attribution

Readers should know who gave the praise on your site. This guide helps you check the quote, the name and the source behind it. Start with the original words, then fill the real facts without guessing.

**The path:** Exact quote → Named speaker → Relevant context and rights → Verified publication.

**Use this when:** A testimonial needs its complete attribution and source reviewed before publication or reuse.

## Inputs
- The complete scoped testimonial/placement inventory and prior name/headshot review if available.
- Primary source for each exact quote, full name and source-backed role/company or consumer context such as city.
- Approved real portrait and any required permission for quote, name, photo and link use.
- Supported edit scope and an internal field-by-field record with the responsible content owner.

## First-run prompt

> Audit the supplied testimonial records field by field. Compare exact quotes, verify speaker/context and use rights, preserve consumer and dated-role truth, and complete authorized changes. Return accepted versus HOLD items with exact evidence gaps and no private-data exposure or invented praise.

## Steps
1. List the fields for each item: exact quote, full name, relevant role, company or appropriate consumer city/context, real portrait, primary source and permission state. Apply the actual speaker context; do not invent a corporate title for a household customer.
2. Compare the public words with the original source. Do not put a paraphrase, composite or strengthened result inside quotation marks. Retain any omission or editorial treatment accurately under the source’s permission.
3. Verify the named speaker and relevant context from reliable source records. A same-name profile is not sufficient, and face resemblance is not an identity test. A current title may differ from the title at the time of the quote; label dates/context truthfully.
4. Check portrait/source association and use rights. A public quote or profile image does not automatically supply every permission needed for the planned use; use the existing documented scope instead of assuming or asking redundantly.
5. Keep anonymous, initials-only, first-name-only, domain/company-only and otherwise incomplete praise HOLD. A plausible business logo does not identify the person who spoke. Prepare exact missing-field requests for the real owner; no unrequested outreach is part of this check.
6. Link the accepted source or permitted verified attribution where appropriate. Preserve privacy limits and avoid exposing private correspondence or contact details as a public proof URL. If only private evidence supports the claim, use the approved public presentation or keep publication pending.
7. Apply authorized exact corrections or remove held public blocks through the supported source. Check the name, portrait, quote and role remain paired at all placements and on desktop/phone.
8. Save the internal field scorecard and exact publication/repurposing decision for every item. Do not let a photo/name pass override a missing quote source, and do not turn a completed draft review into a claim that the praise was published.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

- [ ] Each public testimonial has exact words, a verified full name, appropriate context, real portrait, primary evidence and required permission.
- [ ] Consumer context and dated roles are truthful rather than padded with invented fields.
- [ ] Incomplete or uncertain praise remains HOLD across publication and repurposing.
- [ ] Private evidence and personal contact details are not exposed by public source links.
- [ ] Authorized canonical placements are rechecked with the full attribution intact.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example — no real endorsement was created.** The sample source quote is “The photo checklist helped me show the brake issue.” The invented speaker is Alex Rivera, a consumer customer in a stated sample city, with an approved portrait in this teaching scenario.

The guide does not add “CEO” or a company merely to fill four boxes. It also does not rewrite the quote as “The system saved me $500.” If the portrait permission or primary quote record were missing in a real run, the item would stay HOLD rather than becoming publishable because the name looks complete.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

The content owner receives the full scorecard and publication decision. [Review surrounding achievement claims](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=verify-achievements-are-evidenced-not-just-claimed#task-verify-achievements-are-evidenced-not-just-claimed) checks any stronger result or relationship language built around the quote.

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 each testimonial is published or materially repurposed and when evidence/use scope changes. Record a real new execution separately from mere copy revisions.

## 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 testimonials with full attribution](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=verify-testimonials-with-full-attribution#task-verify-testimonials-with-full-attribution)
- 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.
- Actual primary quote records, appropriate identity/context, portrait rights and canonical publication evidence require the project.