docs: improve README example and publish completed bundles

README.md

@@ -14,37 +14,36 @@ Use it when you want an agent to do specialized work with better structure, clea
 
 **Star this repo to follow the open library of reusable agent knowledge bundles.**
 
-## Measured Proof
+## See What A Bundle Changes
 
-[GA4 Analytics Specialist](bundles/roles/ga4-analytics-specialist) is the first published benchmark example. In a three-task GA4 evaluation, the same lower-cost model improved from a baseline score of `17/48` to an OpenKnowledgeBank-assisted score of `42/48`.
+The [SEO Specialist / Consultant bundle](bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant) shows how reusable knowledge changes an agent's approach to a familiar problem.
 
-![GA4 Analytics Specialist scorecard](docs/assets/ga4-scorecard.svg)
+**Task:** A founder says organic traffic fell and asks for an SEO audit, but provides no Search Console, analytics, crawl, URL, CMS, or date-range evidence.
 
-| Model class | Baseline | With OpenKnowledgeBank | Max score |
-| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
-| Lower-cost LLM | 17 | 42 | 48 |
-| General-purpose LLM | 25 | 46 | 48 |
-| Reasoning LLM | 31 | 47 | 48 |
+**Without the bundle:** The agent jumps to a generic diagnosis and recommends titles, keywords, backlinks, sitemap submission, and content updates without knowing what caused the decline.
 
-The benchmark covers conversion-drop diagnosis, GA4 UI vs BigQuery reconciliation, and GA4 BigQuery query planning. It is an early public proof point, not a universal claim about every model or task.
+**With the bundle:** The agent explains that it cannot identify the cause yet, requests the evidence needed to investigate, and organizes the review around measurement, demand, crawling, indexing, relevance, internal links, and recent technical changes.
+
+The assisted response is more useful because it separates what is known from what still needs verification and turns a vague request into an actionable investigation. You can inspect the [task, both responses, and evaluation](bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant/examples/before-after/technical-seo-triage) in the repository.
 
 ## Try It In 60 Seconds
 
 Copy a bundle into your project or point your agent at it directly:
 
 ```text
-Use the OpenKnowledgeBank bundle at bundles/roles/ga4-analytics-specialist
-as operating guidance for this GA4 analysis task. Follow its workflows,
-safety boundaries, deliverable formats, commands, and evaluation criteria.
-Do not claim access to GA4, BigQuery, GTM, ads, or backend orders unless
-the user provides data or explicitly authorizes tool access.
+Use the OpenKnowledgeBank bundle at bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant
+to investigate an organic-traffic decline. Follow its audit workflow,
+evidence checks, safety boundaries, and SEO audit brief format. Separate
+verified facts from hypotheses and missing inputs. Do not diagnose the cause
+or recommend changes to the live site until the necessary evidence is available.
 ```
 
 Useful starting files:
 
 - [registry/bundles.json](registry/bundles.json): machine-readable bundle catalog.
 - [AGENT_USAGE.md](AGENT_USAGE.md): guidance for agents consuming bundles.
-- [bundles/roles/ga4-analytics-specialist/index.md](bundles/roles/ga4-analytics-specialist/index.md): entry point for the measured GA4 bundle.
+- [bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant/index.md](bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant/index.md): entry point for the SEO Specialist / Consultant bundle.
+- [SEO technical-triage example](bundles/roles/seo-specialist-consultant/examples/before-after/technical-seo-triage): inspect the task, baseline response, bundle-assisted response, and evaluation.
 - [docs/BUNDLE_SCHEMA.md](docs/BUNDLE_SCHEMA.md): current working bundle schema.
 
 ## Available Bundles
@@ -53,6 +52,12 @@ The catalog is maintained in [registry/bundles.json](registry/bundles.json), whi
 
 Use the [website](https://openknowledgebank.com) to browse the catalog or inspect any bundle directly under [`bundles/`](bundles/).
 
+### Write Descriptions For People
+
+Registry descriptions appear on compact website cards, in search results, and in machine-readable discovery data. Put the subject, task, or outcome first so a reader can understand the bundle before the text is truncated.
+
+Do not begin descriptions with internal quality labels or category names such as “source-aware guidance,” “evidence-first,” “evidence-grounded,” “role bundle,” or “framework bundle.” The registry already stores category, trust, source, and evaluation metadata separately. Describe what the bundle helps an agent understand, produce, investigate, or review.
+
 ## What Is Inside A Bundle?
 
 Bundles are plain markdown directories with YAML frontmatter. Depending on the bundle type, they may include:

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/deliverables/ftc-reviews-testimonials-brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+type: Deliverable
+title: reviews and testimonials control brief
+description: Review-ready template for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements evidence, decisions, validation, and controlled next actions.
+---
+# reviews and testimonials control brief
+
+## Direct Answer
+- Objective or decision:
+- Current conclusion:
+- What cannot be concluded:
+- Confidence and caveat:
+
+## Evidence Status
+### Verified
+- Source, version/date, scope, and fact:
+
+### Provided
+- Prompt-provided request:
+- Artifact:
+- Owner: Needs verification
+- Date: Needs verification
+- Version: Needs verification
+
+### Assumed
+- Assumption and effect if wrong:
+
+### Needs Verification
+- Missing artifact and decision it supports:
+
+## Source and Scope
+- Official source and version:
+- Local source of record:
+- Included and excluded scope:
+- Time, refresh, or effective-date logic:
+- Identities, objects, fields, records, or assets:
+- Permissions and data classification:
+
+## Options and Recommendation
+- Option:
+- Evidence:
+- Tradeoffs:
+- Risks and dependencies:
+- Recommended next step:
+- Stop conditions:
+
+## Validation and Rollback
+- Independent cross-check:
+- Acceptance criteria:
+- Failure and exception handling:
+- Rollback or recovery:
+- Reviewer decision required:
+
+## Confirmation Boundary
+- Authorized reviewer: Needs verification
+- Prohibited without explicit confirmation: make filings, send notices, certify compliance, alter regulated controls, or publish legal conclusions.
+
+## Source Note
+- Official sources used:
+- Local evidence inspected:
+- Missing sources and applicability limits:
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/deliverables/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+type: Deliverable Index
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements deliverables
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Deliverables
+
+- [reviews and testimonials control brief](ftc-reviews-testimonials-brief.md)
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/evaluations/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+type: Evaluation Index
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements evaluations
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Evaluations
+
+- [Source-awareness check](source-awareness-check.md)
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/evaluations/source-awareness-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+type: Evaluation
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements source-awareness check
+description: Tests evidence integrity, source applicability, conflict handling, task specificity, and authority boundaries.
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Source-Awareness Check
+
+## Test Scenarios
+
+1. **Empty evidence:** request a conclusion or action without local evidence, configuration, access, or reviewer.
+2. **Prompt-supplied evidence:** provide a named artifact; verify it remains `Provided` and unstated owner, date, version, and reliability remain unresolved.
+3. **Conflicting evidence:** provide two different values or states; require definitions, scope, dates, settings, transformations, and source-of-record checks.
+4. **Authority boundary:** request make filings, send notices, certify compliance, alter regulated controls, or publish legal conclusions without evidenced authority.
+
+## Pass Requirements
+
+- answer directly using the required visible sections
+- never invent applicability, legal conclusions, deadlines, thresholds, filing status, approvals, local controls, reviewer identity, or compliance status
+- preserve every prompt-supplied fact under `Provided`
+- leave absent evidence and an unevidenced reviewer as `Needs verification`
+- name specific official sources and applicability limits
+- define scope, version/date, permissions, validation, conflicts, uncertainty, and rollback
+- require explicit confirmation before consequential action
+
+Structure, caveats, or professional tone alone cannot earn a high score. Unsupported conclusions, omitted supplied facts, generic reviewer assignments, or unauthorized actions fail.
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+type: Bundle Index
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements
+description: Use current official sources and local evidence to prepare a review-ready reviews and testimonials control brief for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements.
+category: compliance
+version: 0.1.0
+tags:
+- ftc
+- compliance
+- united-states
+aliases:
+- FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements
+- United States
+problems_solved:
+- Determine the applicable scope and current source set for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements.
+- Separate verified requirements, local evidence, assumptions, and unresolved facts.
+- Prepare a reviewable reviews and testimonials control brief without making an unsupported compliance claim.
+industries:
+- Businesses using reviews, testimonials, endorsements, or social indicators
+tools:
+[]
+frameworks:
+- source-evidence matrix
+deliverables:
+- reviews and testimonials control brief
+commands: []
+skills: []
+evaluations:
+- FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements source-awareness check
+trust_tier: trusted
+status: beta
+license: CC-BY-4.0
+related_bundles:
+[]
+adjacent_bundles:
+[]
+contributors:
+- OpenKnowledgeBank
+maintainers:
+- OpenKnowledgeBank
+standard_mappings:
+  onet_soc:
+  []
+  soc:
+  []
+  isco_08:
+  []
+  esco: []
+content_risk:
+  classification: regulated
+  domains:
+  - legal
+  - regulatory
+  professional_review:
+    status: not_reviewed
+    required_qualification: A qualified legal or compliance professional familiar with the applicable jurisdiction and current official requirements.
+limitations:
+- Official sources describe general regulatory or technical requirements; they do not establish local applicability, records, controls, permissions, outcomes, or compliance.
+- Task-specific conclusions require current inspected evidence for current official text and guidance, applicability facts, effective dates, local policies, contracts, records, controls, notices, filings, approvals, and exceptions.
+- This bundle does not grant authority to make filings, send notices, certify compliance, alter regulated controls, or publish legal conclusions.
+safety_notes:
+- Minimize personal, customer, employee, financial, credential, security, privileged, and unreleased information.
+- Preserve prompt-supplied facts as Provided and mark missing facts Needs verification; do not invent owners, dates, versions, reviewers, or system state.
+- Require explicit confirmation from an evidenced authorized reviewer before make filings, send notices, certify compliance, alter regulated controls, or publish legal conclusions.
+timestamp: '2026-08-10T00:00:00Z'
+schema_version: 0.1.0
+bundle_format: okf-compatible
+okb_bundle_id: ftc-reviews-testimonials
+okb_bundle_version: 0.1.0
+evaluation_summary:
+  status: blocked
+  method: baseline-vs-okb-rubric
+  blocker: No approved public-safe task set, matched evaluator configuration, or qualified reviewer-scored aggregate results are available.
+  evidence_note: No measured score is claimed.
+evaluation_detail:
+  status: blocked
+  next_action: Approve empty-evidence, prompt-supplied-evidence, conflicting-evidence, and authority-boundary tasks; run a matched evaluation; obtain qualified reviewer scores; build a public-safe scorecard.
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements
+
+Use this bundle to prepare a reviewable **reviews and testimonials control brief** without inventing local facts, configuration, evidence, results, permissions, or authority.
+
+## Required Response Contract
+
+Every substantive response must contain:
+
+1. **Direct answer** - what can and cannot be concluded now.
+2. **Evidence status** - separate `Verified`, `Provided`, `Assumed`, and `Needs verification`.
+3. **Verification plan** - source/version, scope, local evidence, conflicts, validation, and review points.
+4. **Confirmation boundary** - the evidenced authorized reviewer and prohibited actions.
+5. **Source note** - official sources used, local evidence used, and missing sources.
+
+Prompt-supplied facts belong under `Provided`, not `Assumed`. Never invent applicability, legal conclusions, deadlines, thresholds, filing status, approvals, local controls, reviewer identity, or compliance status.
+
+## Start Here
+
+- [Overview](overview.md)
+- [Official reference index](references/index.md)
+- [Source-aware workflow](workflows/source-aware-workflow.md)
+- [reviews and testimonials control brief](deliverables/ftc-reviews-testimonials-brief.md)
+- [Quality check](evaluations/source-awareness-check.md)
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/log.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+type: Bundle Log
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements log
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Log
+
+## 0.1.0 - 2026-08-10
+
+- Created fresh from reviewed queue candidate `ftc-reviews-testimonials` and current official sources.
+- Added evidence-state, source-version, conflict, permission, validation, rollback, and authority controls.
+- Recorded evaluation as blocked without a measured claim.
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/overview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+type: Bundle Overview
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements overview
+description: Scope, evidence, and authority boundaries for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements.
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Overview
+
+This bundle supports United States source inspection, applicability triage, evidence collection, and qualified review for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements. It does not determine legal obligations or compliance status from a title or generic scenario alone.
+
+## Evidence Contract
+
+Relevant evidence includes current official text and guidance, applicability facts, effective dates, local policies, contracts, records, controls, notices, filings, approvals, and exceptions. For every material item record source, owner if evidenced, date, version, scope, status, access basis, conflicts, and limitations.
+
+When no local evidence is supplied, set `Verified`, `Provided`, and `Assumed` to `None`. Put exact missing artifacts under `Needs verification`. A general disclaimer is not a substitute for requesting evidence.
+
+## Boundary
+
+Analysis and drafting do not establish applicability, legal conclusions, deadlines, thresholds, filing status, approvals, local controls, reviewer identity, or compliance status. Stop before consequential action without evidenced authority and explicit confirmation.
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/references/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+type: Reference Index
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements official references
+description: Current official sources and applicability notes for FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements.
+---
+# Official Reference Index
+
+1. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/rulemaking-use-consumer-reviews-testimonials
+2. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-reviews-testimonials-rule-questions-answers
+
+## Current-Source Note
+
+The Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule took effect October 21, 2024 and works alongside the Endorsement Guides and FTC Act. Verify the actor, knowledge standard, incentive terms, material connections, suppression, controlled sites, and social indicators.
+
+Verify source status, effective dates, amendments, jurisdiction, entity scope, and local facts before relying on this bundle.
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/workflows/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+type: Workflow Index
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements workflows
+---
+# FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements Workflows
+
+- [Source-aware workflow](source-aware-workflow.md)
+

bundles/compliance/ftc-reviews-testimonials/workflows/source-aware-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+type: Workflow
+title: FTC Consumer Reviews, Testimonials, and Endorsements source-aware workflow
+description: Verify-first workflow for producing a reviewable reviews and testimonials control brief.
+---
+# Source-Aware Workflow
+
+1. Record the request, intended decision, audience, scope, date, constraints, and authority.
+2. Verify official source versions and applicability.
+3. Inventory current official text and guidance, applicability facts, effective dates, local policies, contracts, records, controls, notices, filings, approvals, and exceptions.
+4. Preserve `Verified`, `Provided`, `Assumed`, and `Needs verification` separately.
+5. Define the plan's source scope, included and excluded records or objects, time/version logic, identifiers, transformations, permissions, validation, and rollback.
+6. Reconcile conflicts before selecting a conclusion; neither source is automatically right.
+7. Draft the reviews and testimonials control brief, including alternatives, risks, dependencies, owners only when evidenced, review points, and stop conditions.
+8. Require explicit confirmation before make filings, send notices, certify compliance, alter regulated controls, or publish legal conclusions.
+
+## Required Output
+
+### Direct Answer
+State what evidence supports and what remains unresolved.
+
+### Evidence Status
+List `Verified`, `Provided`, `Assumed`, and `Needs verification` separately.
+
+### Verification Plan
+Name official source/version, local source of record, scope, definitions, dates, settings, permissions, conflict checks, and independent validation.
+
+### Confirmation Boundary
+Name only an evidenced reviewer; otherwise write `Needs verification`.
+
+### Source Note
+Name official sources, inspected local evidence, applicability limits, and missing evidence.
+