Brain Name: Content Brain
Document Type: Active Operational Protocol
Status: Active Operational Protocol
Version: v1.0
Authority: HeadOffice
Applies To: Content Brain, Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Framework, Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Template, Content Brain Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow, Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification, Content Brain Publishing Readiness Status Values Framework, Content Brain Source Depth And Evidence Label Framework, Content Brain Offer Evidence Requirements Framework, Content Brain Compliance Routing Needs Framework, Content Brain Human Approval Points Framework, Content Brain Future Fields To Define Later Framework, future Content Brain manual workflow testing, future Site Content Intelligence Report Generator planning, future build readiness review, and future Content Brain specification candidate validation
Parent: Content Brain
Last Reviewed: 2026-06-08
Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol
Purpose
The purpose of this page is to define how Content Brain should manually test the Site Content Intelligence Report process before any future generator, UI, queue, dashboard, automation, AI Employee, Supabase structure, or M handoff is considered.
This page exists because Content Brain should not build the Site Content Intelligence Report Generator until the manual report process has been tested across enough real examples.
The current priority is to prove the manual workflow.
This page defines how to run controlled manual tests using:
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Framework
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Template
Content Brain Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow
Content Brain Publishing Readiness Status Values Framework
Content Brain Source Depth And Evidence Label Framework
Content Brain Offer Evidence Requirements Framework
Content Brain Compliance Routing Needs Framework
Content Brain Human Approval Points Framework
Content Brain Future Fields To Define Later Framework
This page does not authorise build work.
This page does not create plugin instructions.
This page does not create UI instructions.
This page does not create Supabase instructions.
This page does not create Brain Room routing instructions.
This page does not create automation instructions.
This page does not create queue instructions.
This page does not create dashboard instructions.
This page does not create generator instructions.
This page does not create AI Employee instructions.
This page does not create M handoff instructions.
This page is a manual testing protocol only.
Current Status
Current Content Brain status:
Manual Workflow Only
Plugin UI Not Started
No Supabase Work Started
No Brain Room Routing Started
No Automation Started
No Queue Build Started
No Dashboard Build Started
No Generator Build Started
No AI Employee Build Started
No Cross Brain Routing Build Started
M’s Active Build Work Untouched
Current evidence stage:
Manual Workflow Evidence Stage
Current planning stage:
Build Readiness Planning Stage
Current page role:
Active Operational Protocol
Current maturity status:
Workflow usable
Evidence backed
Manual ready
Site aware
Site Content Intelligence Framework created
Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification created
Publishing readiness status values created
Source depth labels created
Offer evidence requirements created
Compliance routing logic created
Human approval points created
Future field parking discipline created
Site Content Intelligence Report Template created
Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow created
Manual test protocol now required
Future generator not authorised
Future UI not authorised
Future queue not authorised
Future dashboard not authorised
Future automation not authorised
Future M handoff not authorised
This page is a manual test protocol only.
Why This Page Is Needed
Content Brain has now defined the planning layer around Site Content Intelligence.
However, planning pages are not proof by themselves.
Before Content Brain moves toward a future generator, the manual report process must prove that it works across real cases.
Manual testing should answer:
Does the report template help the operator make better content decisions?
Does the report reveal useful content gaps?
Does the report prevent duplicate content?
Does the report identify refresh opportunities?
Does the report identify internal linking opportunities?
Does the report identify affiliate support gaps?
Does the report expose offer evidence gaps?
Does the report expose compliance routing needs?
Does the report produce a clear next operational page?
Does the report reduce confusion?
Does the report create too much friction?
Does the report produce outputs worth later building?
Without manual tests, Content Brain risks building a generator around theory rather than proven workflow.
Core Principle
Do not build the generator until the manual report format proves itself.
A future Site Content Intelligence Report Generator should only be considered after repeated manual reports show that:
the report format is useful
the sections are stable
the status values are useful
the source depth labels are useful
the offer evidence notes are useful
the compliance routing notes are useful
the human approval points are clear
the next workflow decision is clear
the operator saves time or makes better decisions
Manual evidence comes before build readiness.
Test Objective
The objective of this protocol is to test whether the Site Content Intelligence process can reliably turn an existing site review into a useful next Content Brain action.
Each manual test should produce:
a Site Content Intelligence Report
a source depth label
an evidence quality label
a content inventory summary
a tone summary
a topic coverage summary
content gap notes
refresh opportunity notes
internal linking opportunity notes
affiliate support gap notes where relevant
offer evidence notes where relevant
compliance routing notes where relevant
human approval points
recommended next operational page
final readiness status
a test result
a friction note
a build readiness signal
The test is successful only if it produces a clearer next action than the operator had before the report.
Test Scope
This protocol applies to manual Site Content Intelligence tests for:
MWMS sites
affiliate sites
campaign sites
content-heavy sites
thin content sites
bridge pages
landing pages
offer support sites
client style business sites
SEO content sites
authority content sites
internal Brain sites where site structure matters
This protocol does not apply to:
pure internal notes
tiny one-off content requests
content with no existing site context
technical plugin testing
Supabase testing
automation testing
Brain Room testing
AI Employee testing
M implementation work
The test is manual only.
Recommended Test Types
Run the following types of Site Content Intelligence manual tests over time.
Test Type 1: Existing MWMS Content Site Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report helps Content Brain understand an existing MWMS site before creating more content.
Use when:
the site has existing pages
content structure matters
tone consistency matters
internal linking matters
refresh opportunities may exist
Expected output:
site content report
content gap list
refresh opportunities
internal linking notes
recommended next operational page
Test Type 2: Affiliate Support Site Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report identifies affiliate support gaps before creating affiliate content.
Use when:
the site supports an affiliate offer
offer evidence matters
VSL support matters
disclosure risk matters
bridge page flow matters
Expected output:
affiliate support gap review
offer evidence notes
compliance routing notes
recommended affiliate content assets
approval points
Test Type 3: Bridge Page Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report can identify issues in a bridge page or campaign landing page.
Use when:
the page sits between ad and VSL
ad to page match matters
curiosity control matters
claim safety matters
CTA pressure matters
Expected output:
bridge page risk notes
VSL transition notes
offer evidence notes
compliance routing notes
refresh recommendation
Test Type 4: Thin Content Site Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report can identify weak content and prevent more weak content being created.
Use when:
the site has thin pages
generic pages
weak trust signals
weak reader value
low information gain
Expected output:
thin content warnings
refresh recommendations
pages to avoid creating
trust content gaps
information gain notes
Test Type 5: Internal Linking And Topic Cluster Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report can identify useful page relationships and topic structure.
Use when:
the site has multiple related pages
hub and spoke structure matters
reader journey matters
SEO structure matters
Expected output:
topic coverage map
hub and spoke notes
internal linking opportunities
reader journey notes
Search Intelligence routing if needed
Test Type 6: Refresh Before New Content Review
Purpose:
Test whether the report correctly recommends refreshing existing content instead of creating new content.
Use when:
there is likely overlap
old pages exist
content may already cover the topic
existing content needs improvement
Expected output:
duplicate or overlap warnings
refresh opportunities
do not create content notes
recommended refresh workflow
Test Type 7: Offer Evidence Stress Test
Purpose:
Test whether the report correctly identifies missing or weak offer evidence.
Use when:
affiliate content is requested
offer claims are unclear
VSL claims are unknown
proof is weak
disclosures are unclear
Expected output:
offer evidence status
claims needing review
routing to Affiliate Brain, Research Brain, Compliance Brain, or HeadOffice
Test Type 8: Compliance Routing Stress Test
Purpose:
Test whether the report correctly identifies claim and platform risk.
Use when:
health, wellness, financial, income, safety, comparison, testimonial, urgency, scarcity, VSL, or affiliate claims appear
Expected output:
compliance risk category
source depth label
claim softening notes
routing to Compliance Brain or HeadOffice
Test Selection Rule
Choose test sites or pages that reveal real workflow pressure.
Do not only test easy examples.
A good test should expose at least one of the following:
site context uncertainty
duplicate content risk
thin content risk
refresh opportunity
internal linking gap
affiliate support gap
offer evidence gap
compliance risk
search validation need
human approval need
unclear next operational page
This gives better evidence than testing only clean pages.
Test Input Requirements
Each manual test should begin with the following inputs.
Required inputs:
site name
site URL or supplied content
test type
reason for test
known business model
known audience if available
known offer if relevant
known content goal
known source depth
known limitations
Optional inputs:
page list
full page copy
screenshot notes
offer page
VSL transcript or summary
affiliate network information
campaign context
ad angle
bridge page URL or copy
existing content notes
operator concerns
previous test notes
If key inputs are missing, the test can still run, but the report must label the evidence limitations.
Test Process
Use this step by step test process.
Step 1: Define The Test
Record:
test number
test name
site reviewed
test type
reason for test
expected learning
known limitations
Step 2: Select The Source Material
Identify what will be reviewed.
Possible source material:
homepage
key service page
blog page
offer page
bridge page
landing page
affiliate support page
content list
uploaded page text
VSL summary
operator supplied context
Record the source depth label.
Step 3: Complete The Site Content Intelligence Report
Use Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Template.
Use full form when:
affiliate content is involved
claim risk exists
bridge page is involved
landing page is involved
site architecture matters
future build evidence matters
Use short form when:
the review is lightweight
the task is early stage
only directional guidance is needed
Step 4: Apply Source Depth And Evidence Labels
Record:
source depth label
evidence quality label
evidence limitations
confidence notes
source review required if needed
Step 5: Apply Offer Evidence Review If Relevant
If affiliate or product support is involved, record:
offer identity
offer evidence status
VSL context
primary promise
mechanism known
proof status
disclaimer notes
claim risk
routing required
Step 6: Apply Compliance Routing Review If Relevant
Record:
claim risk category
compliance routing required
claim softening needed
disclosure review needed
evidence before compliance needed
do not use until reviewed if needed
Step 7: Apply Human Approval Points
Record:
human approval required
approval owner
approval scope
what is approved for
what is not approved for
decision needed
Step 8: Use Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow
Decide the next operational page.
Possible outcomes:
Create Content Brief
Create SEO Content Brief
Create Affiliate Product Content Pack
Create Affiliate Funnel Support Asset
Use Content Brain Refresh
Use Content Brain Internal Linking
Use Content Brain Repurposing
Route To Research Brain
Route To Search Intelligence Brain
Route To Affiliate Brain
Route To Compliance Brain
Route To HeadOffice
Park Pending Clarity
Do Not Create Content
Step 9: Record Test Result
Record whether the report produced a useful next action.
Use test result values:
Passed
Passed With Friction
Partially Passed
Failed
Parked Pending Clarity
Step 10: Record Build Readiness Signal
Record whether the test supports future generator planning.
Use build readiness signals:
No Build Signal
Weak Build Signal
Moderate Build Signal
Strong Build Signal
Build Blocker Found
Manual Only For Now
A strong build signal does not authorise build work.
It only supports future planning evidence.
Test Result Values
Use the following result values.
Passed
Meaning:
The manual report produced a clear, useful next action with manageable friction.
Use when:
report format worked
next step was clear
evidence labels were useful
routing was clear
approval points were clear
Passed With Friction
Meaning:
The report worked, but some parts were too heavy, unclear, repetitive, or slow.
Use when:
manual output was useful
but template sections may need trimming or refinement
Partially Passed
Meaning:
The report produced some useful findings but did not fully resolve the next action.
Use when:
evidence was incomplete
source depth was limited
routing remained unclear
report needed more context
Failed
Meaning:
The report did not help enough to justify the workflow in that case.
Use when:
template created bloat
next action was unclear
source material was insufficient
workflow did not fit the task
Parked Pending Clarity
Meaning:
The test could not complete because required context was missing.
Use when:
site purpose unclear
source material missing
offer context missing
approval owner unclear
content goal unclear
Build Readiness Signal Values
Use the following build readiness signal values.
No Build Signal
Meaning:
The test does not provide evidence for future build planning.
Weak Build Signal
Meaning:
The test shows some possible future value but not enough to influence build planning.
Moderate Build Signal
Meaning:
The test shows the workflow may be useful enough to continue testing.
Strong Build Signal
Meaning:
The test strongly supports the need for a future repeatable system, but still does not authorise build work.
Build Blocker Found
Meaning:
The test found a problem that must be solved before any build planning.
Manual Only For Now
Meaning:
The workflow is useful but too judgment-heavy for build planning at this stage.
Friction Categories
Record friction using these categories.
Template Too Heavy
Meaning:
The report format took too long or included unnecessary sections.
Missing Section
Meaning:
The report needed a section that was not included.
Unclear Status Language
Meaning:
The status values were confusing or insufficient.
Unclear Source Depth
Meaning:
The evidence depth was hard to label.
Offer Evidence Gap
Meaning:
Affiliate offer evidence was missing or unclear.
Compliance Routing Gap
Meaning:
Claim risk was unclear or routing was uncertain.
Human Approval Gap
Meaning:
Approval owner or approval scope was unclear.
Next Workflow Unclear
Meaning:
The report did not clearly identify the next operational page.
Too Much Manual Judgement
Meaning:
The workflow required too much human interpretation to standardise yet.
Future Field Confusion
Meaning:
Possible future fields appeared, but were not stable enough.
No Actionable Output
Meaning:
The report created notes but not useful decisions.
Manual Test Record Template
Use this template for each test.
Manual Site Intelligence Test Record
Test Number:
Test Name:
Date:
Author:
Site Reviewed:
Site URL Or Source:
Test Type:
Reason For Test:
Source Depth Label:
Evidence Quality Label:
Source Limitations:
Pages Or Materials Reviewed:
Known Offer:
Known Audience:
Known Content Goal:
Report Format Used:
Full Form / Short Form
Key Findings:
Content Gaps Found:
Refresh Opportunities Found:
Internal Linking Opportunities Found:
Repurposing Opportunities Found:
Affiliate Support Gaps Found:
Offer Evidence Status:
Compliance Routing Needed:
Human Approval Required:
Recommended Next Operational Page:
Recommended Next Brain:
Final Readiness Status:
Test Result:
Friction Found:
Build Readiness Signal:
Recommended Improvement:
Next Action:
Save Point:
Test Pass Criteria
A manual test passes when:
the report is clear
the source depth is labelled
the evidence quality is labelled
the site purpose is clearer
the next operational page is clear
the report avoids unnecessary content creation
duplicate risk is considered
refresh opportunity is considered
internal linking opportunity is considered
offer evidence is checked where relevant
compliance routing is checked where relevant
human approval points are clear
the final status is precise
the operator has a useful next action
A test does not require a perfect report to pass.
It only needs to improve the decision.
Test Failure Criteria
A manual test fails when:
the report creates bloat without clarity
the report does not improve the next decision
source depth is unclear
evidence quality is unclear
next operational page is unclear
the report recommends content too quickly
offer evidence is ignored
compliance risk is ignored
human approval is ignored
duplicate content risk is ignored
the report cannot be used for the next step
the workflow does not fit the task type
Failure is useful evidence.
Failed tests show what should stay manual, what should be simplified, or what should not be built.
Minimum Test Set Before Generator Planning
Before the Site Content Intelligence Report Generator is considered for build ready specification planning, Content Brain should ideally complete a minimum set of manual tests.
Recommended minimum test set:
one MWMS content site review
one affiliate support site review
one bridge page review
one thin content site review
one internal linking and topic cluster review
one refresh before new content review
one offer evidence stress test
one compliance routing stress test
This does not authorise build work.
It only creates stronger evidence for future planning.
Build Readiness Review Questions
After several tests, ask:
Did the template produce useful reports repeatedly?
Which sections were always useful?
Which sections were rarely useful?
Which sections created bloat?
Which labels helped decisions?
Which labels caused confusion?
Did the report produce clear next actions?
Did the report reduce duplicate content?
Did the report improve refresh decisions?
Did the report improve affiliate content decisions?
Did the report improve compliance routing?
Did the report improve human approval clarity?
Did the report create future fields worth consolidating?
Is this still manual only?
Is a future generator justified?
What must be simplified before build planning?
If these answers are unclear, continue manual testing.
What This Protocol Must Not Do
This protocol must not:
authorise generator build
authorise UI build
authorise Supabase build
authorise automation
authorise queues
authorise dashboards
authorise AI Employees
authorise Brain Room routing
authorise cross brain wiring
authorise M handoff
treat one test as proof
force every site review into a full report
create unnecessary bloat
turn manual judgement into premature fields
replace HeadOffice approval
replace Compliance Brain
replace Research Brain
replace Search Intelligence Brain
replace Affiliate Brain
Relationship To Site Content Intelligence Report Template
The report template defines the report format.
This protocol defines how to test that format manually.
Use the template to create the report.
Use this protocol to judge whether the report worked.
Relationship To Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow
The Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow defines how a report becomes a next action.
This protocol tests whether that workflow produces a useful next step.
A test should always record the recommended next operational page or Brain.
Relationship To Future Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification
The future generator specification defines what the generator may eventually do.
This protocol defines how to gather manual evidence before that generator is considered build ready.
This page does not authorise the generator.
Relationship To Future Fields To Define Later Framework
Manual tests may reveal future fields.
Those fields should be parked, not built.
Use the Future Fields To Define Later Framework to avoid field bloat.
Relationship To Human Approval Points Framework
Manual tests must record human approval points.
This is especially important when public content, affiliate offers, claims, compliance risk, bridge pages, campaign use, or future build readiness is involved.
Relationship To M Handoff
This page is not an M handoff pack.
Do not give this page to M as implementation instructions.
M should not build from this page.
Manual testing must happen before any future M handoff is considered.
Drift Protection
This protocol prevents:
building from theory
generator planning without manual proof
report template bloat going unnoticed
future fields being created too early
manual site reports becoming inconsistent
site intelligence reports becoming dead documents
content gaps becoming automatic content briefs
affiliate content being created without offer evidence
compliance routing being skipped
human approval being skipped
M receiving premature instructions
one successful test being over interpreted
weak manual evidence being treated as build readiness
Recommended Next Step
Use this protocol for the next manual Site Content Intelligence test.
Recommended next test:
Run a real Site Content Intelligence Report using the new template.
Then record the test result using this protocol.
Do not build UI.
Do not build queues.
Do not build dashboards.
Do not build generators.
Do not build AI Employees.
Do not create Supabase fields.
Do not create database schema.
Do not create M handoff instructions.
Registry update:
Deferred until end of day batch update.
Pending registry entry:
Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol
Status:
Active Operational Protocol
Version:
v1.0
Parent:
Content Brain
Expected page count impact:
Previous expected page count:
50 pages
New expected page count:
51 pages
Change Impact Declaration
Pages Created:
Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol
Pages Updated:
None immediately
Pages Renamed:
None
Pages Deleted:
None
Pages Deprecated:
None
Registries Requiring Update:
Content Brain Page Registry at end of day batch update
Canon Version Update Required:
No
Architecture Version Update Required:
No
Manual Workflow Test Log Update Required:
No
Manual Workflow Synthesis Report Update Required:
No
Build Readiness Shortlist Update Required:
No
Plugin UI Impact:
None
Supabase Impact:
None
Brain Room Routing Impact:
None
Automation Impact:
None
Queue Impact:
None
Dashboard Impact:
None
Generator Build Impact:
None
AI Employee Impact:
None
Cross Brain Routing Impact:
None
M Active Build Impact:
None
Page Count Impact:
Previous expected page count:
50 pages
New expected page count:
51 pages
Registry update timing:
Deferred until end of day batch update
Change Log
Version: v1.0
Date: 2026-06-08
Author: HeadOffice
Change:
Created Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol as an Active Operational Protocol.
Defined how Content Brain should manually test the Site Content Intelligence Report process before any future generator, UI, queue, dashboard, automation, AI Employee, Supabase structure, or M handoff is considered.
Added test objective, test scope, recommended test types, test selection rule, test input requirements, test process, test result values, build readiness signal values, friction categories, manual test record template, test pass criteria, test failure criteria, minimum test set before generator planning, build readiness review questions, what this protocol must not do, relationships to Site Content Intelligence Report Template, Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow, future Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification, Future Fields To Define Later Framework, Human Approval Points Framework, M handoff, drift protection, and recommended next step.
Confirmed this page does not authorise plugin UI, Supabase, Brain Room routing, automation, queues, dashboards, generators, AI Employees, cross brain routing, or M implementation handoff.
End Of Day Save Point Template
Page list checked:
Yes / No
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Publishing Readiness Status Values Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Source Depth And Evidence Label Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Offer Evidence Requirements Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Compliance Routing Needs Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Human Approval Points Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Future Fields To Define Later Framework created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Template created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol created:
Yes / No
Content Brain Page Registry updated today:
Yes / No
Registry update deferred:
Yes / No
Pages created:
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Generator Specification
Content Brain Publishing Readiness Status Values Framework
Content Brain Source Depth And Evidence Label Framework
Content Brain Offer Evidence Requirements Framework
Content Brain Compliance Routing Needs Framework
Content Brain Human Approval Points Framework
Content Brain Future Fields To Define Later Framework
Content Brain Site Content Intelligence Report Template
Content Brain Site Intelligence To Content Brief Workflow
Content Brain Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol
Pages updated:
None / Content Brain Page Registry if updated at closeout
Pages renamed:
None
Pages deleted:
None
Current expected page count:
51 pages / other
No plugin UI started:
Yes / No
No Supabase work started:
Yes / No
No Brain Room routing started:
Yes / No
No automation started:
Yes / No
No queue work started:
Yes / No
No dashboard work started:
Yes / No
No generator build started:
Yes / No
No AI Employee work started:
Yes / No
No cross brain routing started:
Yes / No
M’s active work untouched:
Yes / No
Target save point:
Content Brain — Site Intelligence Manual Test Protocol Created / Registry Update Deferred / Build Readiness Planning Stage / Manual Workflow Only / Plugin UI Not Started
Final Rule
Manual evidence comes before build readiness.
Do not build the Site Content Intelligence Report Generator until the manual report process proves itself across real tests.
A test passes only if it produces a clearer next action.
A strong build signal is not build approval.
This protocol is manual operating logic only.
It is not build approval.
END CONTENT BRAIN SITE INTELLIGENCE MANUAL TEST PROTOCOL v1.0