In one week, an internal audit of an unnamed Reno studio website moved from 4.3 to 9.4. That is the documented audit change for this project—not a Lighthouse score, a Google ranking, a traffic result, or a booking result. The supplied evidence also records a live mobile Lighthouse performance change from 61 to 85, while the other Lighthouse categories in that referenced run were 100. Those measures answer different questions. The audit captured a broader review of the site; Lighthouse measured a live mobile technical check. The work below is useful precisely because it did not depend on a single cosmetic adjustment. It corrected information that could send people to the wrong number, made service and fee information easier to find, removed statements that could not be supported, deepened the service content, and made the site more intelligible to people and machines. This is an anonymous account of the documented scope only. No calendar dates, price amounts, consultation-fee amount, rankings, leads, appointments, revenue, or client testimony were supplied, so none are claimed here.
Situation
The starting point was a Reno studio website whose internal audit measured 4.3. The supplied project record places the follow-up audit at 9.4 after one week. The point of the review was not to dress up a score or declare a marketing win. It was to make the public site more accurate, more useful at the service level, and more reliable when it was rendered and checked on mobile.
The evidence shows several kinds of work occurring together: basic contact accuracy, local-profile consistency, price and consultation-fee visibility, content revision, page expansion, structured context, and rendering and error-path improvements. Those belong to one customer journey, but they fail in different ways. A visitor can be ready to call and still reach the wrong number; a service page can be visible yet too thin to answer a practical question; a crawler can retrieve a route differently from a visitor. Treating each issue as a distinct fix kept the scope concrete.
What was broken
The clearest documented defect was contact information: the wrong phone number appeared on every page. The project also required the Google Business Profile phone number, hours, and website to match the site. That is not a claim that profile visibility or rankings changed. It is a statement of the consistency standard applied to the known business details.
At the content level, the project evidence calls out prices and a consultation fee, the removal of unsupported claims, and a rebuild of 16 service pages. Those pages moved from roughly 500 words each to roughly 1,100–1,300 words each and gained FAQs. A dedicated areola page was part of the scope. On the technical side, schema and llms files were included, along with prerendering and a real 404 response. The supplied record does not provide an inventory of every prior page state, so this note does not infer more defects than it names.
Fix 1 — Correct the sitewide phone number and align the local profile
The first fix addressed the information error with the most immediate consequence: every page carried the wrong phone number. The sitewide number was corrected. The Google Business Profile was then aligned so its phone number, hours, and website matched the website. This is a basic accuracy repair, not a promotional tactic or a claim about local-search results.
The acceptance criterion was consistency: a person arriving through the website or the profile should encounter the same supplied contact details and destination. The evidence does not state the previous and final phone numbers or hours, and those details are intentionally not reproduced. What is documented is the before condition—an incorrect phone number on every site page—and the matching requirement applied across the site and profile.
Fix 2 — Put prices and the consultation fee where service decisions happen
The scope included prices and a consultation fee. The supplied evidence does not provide any dollar amounts, whether every service used the same structure, or a measured effect on inquiries. For that reason, the work is described as making those decision-relevant details present and clear, rather than claiming a particular pricing strategy or conversion outcome.
This matters because a service page should carry enough practical information for a visitor to understand the next decision without relying on vague promises. In this project, price and consultation-fee information were treated as part of the page content, alongside the service explanation. The acceptance criterion was informational clarity, not a claim that visitors booked, qualified themselves, or spent a particular amount.
Fix 3 — Remove claims that could not be supported
Unsupported claims were removed. That is a deliberately narrow description: the project record identifies the cleanup but does not list the individual statements, their source, or their replacement wording. The revised site should not ask a visitor to accept claims that the available evidence cannot substantiate.
This was not a rewrite for louder marketing language. It was an evidence boundary. Removing unsupported language makes the remaining service information easier to assess on its own terms and prevents this case note from treating copy changes as proof of commercial impact. No rankings, review outcomes, client results, or clinical outcomes are reported here because none were supplied.
Fix 4 — Rebuild 16 service pages for depth and useful questions
Sixteen service pages were rebuilt from approximately 500 words apiece to approximately 1,100–1,300 words apiece, with FAQs added. The documented change is page depth and question coverage. It is not evidence that longer pages automatically rank better, generate more leads, or answer every possible visitor concern.
The practical standard was more specific than word count alone. A service page needed enough room to explain its subject and include frequently asked questions rather than leave the visitor with a short description and no next layer of information. The stated range is approximate, as supplied. It should not be read as a promise that every page landed at an identical count or that word count itself was the success metric.
Fix 5 — Add a dedicated areola page
A dedicated areola page was added as part of the service-content work. The supplied evidence identifies the page but does not provide its full copy, publication date, clinical claims, imagery, traffic, or outcome data. This note therefore records the creation of the page without expanding it into a claim about medical guidance, demand, performance, or results.
Its role in the seven-fix plan was specificity. A distinct service deserved a distinct page instead of being left only as a brief mention within broader content. The acceptance criterion was the presence of that dedicated page within the rebuilt service set. No statement is made about how users found it, what they did after reading it, or how it performed in search.
Fix 6 — Add schema and llms files as machine-readable context
The project added schema and llms files. These are documented site-context improvements, not proof that a search engine or an AI system used them in a particular way. Their inclusion belongs to the technical foundation: they make designated information available in structured or machine-readable forms alongside the visitor-facing pages.
The acceptance criterion was implementation of schema and llms files, not a promised placement in a search result, an AI answer, or a ranking report. No external-platform outcome was supplied. Keeping that distinction matters: implementation can be verified on the site, while a claim about how another system interpreted or surfaced the site would require separate evidence.
Fix 7 — Make the rendered site and failure path more dependable
The final documented grouping covers prerendering, a real 404, and live mobile testing. Prerendering was included so the site had a documented rendered-delivery improvement. A real 404 was included so a nonexistent route produced an actual not-found response rather than a misleading successful page. The record does not name the implementation method, platform, or every route tested, so those details are not invented here.
A live mobile Lighthouse performance score changed from 61 to 85. In the referenced live run, the other Lighthouse categories were 100. This is a Lighthouse measurement, not the internal 4.3-to-9.4 audit and not a Google ranking. It shows a recorded mobile technical result for that run; it does not establish a universal score across devices, future releases, or network conditions.
What we did
The seven fixes formed one bounded rebuild plan: correct sitewide phone information and align the Google Business Profile; make prices and the consultation fee clear; remove unsupported claims; rebuild 16 service pages with more depth and FAQs; add a dedicated areola page; add schema and llms files; and improve rendered delivery, not-found handling, and live mobile performance. Each action appears in the supplied evidence.
Equally important, the plan did not convert implementation into proof it did not have. No tools, software, redesign details, dollar amounts, copy quotations, ranking changes, booking totals, revenue figures, or client statements are attached to these fixes. The work is presented as a site-quality intervention with documented audit and Lighthouse measurements, not as a guarantee of a business outcome.
Results
The internal audit moved from 4.3 to 9.4 in one week. Separately, the recorded live mobile Lighthouse performance score improved from 61 to 85, with the other Lighthouse categories at 100 in that referenced measurement. The site also had the documented scope changes: the wrong phone number was corrected across pages; Google Business Profile phone, hours, and website were matched; service-content, schema, llms, prerendering, and 404 work were completed.
No more expansive result is claimed. The evidence does not report Google rankings, impressions, visits, leads, consultations, bookings, revenue, return on investment, or user research. It also does not establish a causal link between any single fix and either measured score. The defensible result is a materially higher internal audit score, a recorded mobile Lighthouse improvement, and completion of the stated site repairs within the one-week window.
Timeline
The documented timeline is one week from the 4.3 internal audit to the 9.4 internal audit. Exact start and end dates were not supplied. The sequence of individual fixes inside that week was also not supplied, so this note does not assign an order, duration, or owner to any specific task.
For future review, the appropriate acceptance check is factual rather than speculative: verify the correct phone number across the site, confirm the profile matches the site for phone, hours, and website, inspect the service-page set and dedicated areola page, confirm schema and llms files and prerendered delivery, test a nonexistent route for a real 404, and rerun mobile Lighthouse under disclosed conditions. New ranking or business claims would need their own dated evidence.