Record the actual change and affected page
Identify the page or setting, the previous state and the revised state. In a fictional service business, the team adds a missing service-area description and corrects an outdated contact page. Record those as two specific changes rather than an entry saying AI optimisation completed. Include the owner and the reason each item needed attention. Keep enough context for a later reviewer to understand the change without reproducing the entire website or relying on the original author’s memory.
State the purpose without promising the outcome
Describe the practical problem the change addresses, such as a missing answer to a customer question or a page that could not be reached in a recorded check. Avoid writing that the change will make an assistant recommend the business. That is an outcome hypothesis, not an implementation fact. In the fictional service-area example, the confirmed purpose is to explain where the business works. Whether a future answer uses that information remains a separate observation to collect.
Verify what was actually published
Check the live page or relevant system after the change and retain the result. A saved draft or successful build does not establish that the public page contains the revision. Inspect the specific text, link or setting affected rather than relying only on the homepage loading. Record failed checks and any correction required. If a test covers only one page or one access path, state that scope. The change log should distinguish prepared, published and verified states.
Keep visibility observations in their own record
Record the question, date, tool and answer evidence for subsequent mention checks. Link those observations to the change period without labelling them caused by the change. Include unchanged and negative observations as well as favourable ones. A new source link or mention may be worth investigating, but one occurrence is not a durable result. Keep source evidence available so the report can distinguish a business being named from being recommended or cited for a specific claim.
Note other changes that affect interpretation
Record concurrent work that could matter, such as a changed offer, another marketing campaign or several pages updated together. If many changes happen at once, acknowledge that their individual effects cannot be separated from the available observations. Compare like-for-like questions and periods where possible, and label missing data. Do not fill gaps with a narrative about the platform’s algorithm. The log should make uncertainty easier to see rather than turn a timeline into an explanation it cannot support.
Use the record to choose the next review
Review whether the original implementation problem is resolved and whether later observations justify another investigation. Correct inaccurate information because it is inaccurate, even when a mention test shows no change. Keep untested ideas separate from completed work. If a revision is reversed, record why and verify the restored state. A useful log lets the business see what it paid to change, what was checked and what remains unknown without disguising activity as evidence of improved recommendations.