# Service-area architecture handoff

Use this privately with the owner, SEO reviewer and website implementer. Area A/B/C in the worked example CSV are anonymised teaching labels, not locations to publish.

## Coverage evidence

Confirm offered services and actual areas with the operational owner. Record conditions that affect enquiries. Distinguish coverage from a staffed physical location. Uncertain coverage or a missing customer purpose means hold; do not manufacture local projects or details.

## Customer purpose and existing pages

For each candidate, list the question it answers, existing URL/purpose, useful distinct information and evidence owner. Choose keep/improve, merge recommendation, separate proposal, hold or excluded-coverage review. No numerical uniqueness score or word quota is prescribed.

## Before any merge / URL change

| Check | Evidence / decision | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Live body and URL inventory | | |
| Useful content that must survive | | |
| Preferred destination serves the customer task | | |
| Existing internal/external links | | |
| Navigation / archive / sitemap / feed dependencies where applicable | | |
| Forms / downloads / tracking dependencies | | |
| Current search/performance evidence and limitations | | |
| Exact source change and any proposed redirect/removal scope | | |
| Authority, independent review and website writer ownership | | |
| Known-good rollback and pre-change evidence | | |
| Live destinations / contact path / protected routes verified afterwards | | |

A planning recommendation is not implementation approval. A canonical tag does not decide the customer's journey, and the worksheet does not assess a search penalty. Record later discovery and outcomes separately from a successful technical change.