Status
Planned. No pages have been selected, changed, or measured for this test. There is no reported uplift.
The question
Can the agent identify a specific weakness in an existing page and improve it with a focused revision, rather than defaulting to writing something new?
We want to test the quality of the diagnosis and the usefulness of the proposed change before making claims about performance.
The proposed method
Choose a small group of pages with a defined purpose. Record their current content, page revisions, and relevant performance data.
Ask the SEO role to identify the gap. Ask the Content role to prepare a specific update using checked source material. The proposal must explain why this change is preferable to another new page.
Keep factual claims, examples, headings, and internal links reviewable. Do not rewrite unrelated sections merely to make the diff larger.
A controlled release
Publish only approved changes. Preserve the original revision and log other site changes during the observation period.
A reference group may help the later review when a meaningful comparison is possible. It should not be presented as a perfect experiment merely because unchanged pages exist.
What to evaluate
First, review whether the agent diagnosed a real problem, whether the draft addressed it, and how much repair was needed.
Second, evaluate the agreed performance measures after the observation window. Include missing data, alternative explanations, and inconclusive findings.
What will be published
The original problem, the proposed revision, the approval record, the test conditions, and the observed result. A negative outcome should still produce an update to the workflow.
Explore content optimization or meet the Content Agent.