the audit (FAx) / sample audits / XIV

This is a sample. A real audit of a real practice, shown with identifying details removed.

The audit is the scorecard itself. The review is the thirty minutes we spend going through it together.

FAx

VISIBILITY
SCORECARD

Specimen XIV, a Canadian med-spa chain (Toronto)
specimen-xiv.example.com · July 28, 2026 · Tier 1 audit · Rubric v1.1
12
signals measured
Sample scorecard
More once we complete the manual review together.
Executive summary

Patients searching AI tools like ChatGPT already find and cite your site, and your Google reviews get a reply every time. your visibility is typical for your market: visible to motivated patients, but losing others weekly on gaps in how you convert and label your practice. The full picture is worth a conversation.

Book your 30-minute review →
What the audit found

Strengths

+AI search already names and links youContent and discoverability

Across AI search (the answers ChatGPT and Google's AI give patients), you were named in about a third of test answers and your site cited in roughly four in ten. Patients asking AI find you.

+Every Google review gets a replyReputation and proof

Your review response rate is 100%. Patients reading your reviews see an owner who engages, which builds trust and makes them more likely to choose you over a silent competitor.

+Your Google categories are well matchedLocal presence and Google

You list five aesthetic-relevant categories on your Google profile. This helps the right patients reach you when they search for the treatments you actually offer.

+A clear booking button is front and centerWebsite and booking

Your mobile homepage shows a Request a Free Consultation button above the fold. Patients see the next step immediately, which keeps them from bouncing to an easier site.

Costliest gaps

–Your Google Q&A section is emptyLocal presence and Google

Your profile shows zero questions and zero answers. Patients comparing practices see no answers to common questions on your listing, so they tend to move to a profile that addresses their doubts.

–No live self-booking, only a request formWebsite and booking

Your only path is a request form, with no real-time scheduler and no Book online button on Google. Patients who want to book now are more likely to pick a practice that lets them.

–Your site is not labeled as a medical businessContent and discoverability

Your homepage carries only generic Organization code labels (the code that tells search engines what your business is), with no medical or clinic labels. Search engines see you less clearly than competitors who use them.

–Financing shows in only one placeWebsite and booking

Financing appears on your homepage but is not confirmed on treatment pages or the booking flow. Patients weighing cost mid-decision may not see it when it matters, and hesitate.

–Mobile speed is middle of the packWebsite and booking

Your mobile speed score is 63. It works, but slower loads on phones lose a share of patients before your page finishes, especially those comparing several practices quickly.

The path forward

Discuss the findings

Let's walk through the full picture together and see where the ready-to-book patients are slipping away. A short conversation turns this snapshot into a clear order of what moves the needle first.

Lazar preps before the call: your Google Q&A section is empty, and no live self-booking, only a request form, both mapped in advance, plus every item marked In your review, ready to walk through together.

Book your 30-minute review →

Lazar LaLone · lazar@fractionalaesthetics.com · (412) 944-5506

Methodology

The goal: a diagnostic read of what a patient, or a referring doctor, sees from the outside, working only from what is openly on display and never from the practice's own dashboards or private analytics. It intentionally does not prescribe fixes, because effective solutions need further conversation and analysis to get right.

Rubric
Aesthetic Practice Visibility Scorecard v1.1, 100-point composite
Two kinds of number
Scores of 0 to 3 are ours, applied from this rubric. Figures such as Google's PageSpeed result, your star rating, review counts and follower counts are third-party measurements we read and report, not numbers we assign
This audit
Tier 1, the complimentary read. Every one of the 34 signals is drawn from patient-facing data. Tier 2 adds paid-media spend analysis, and only when you choose to share your ad data.
Signals
12 measured from patient-facing data so far; the rest walked through together in your review
Review items
Excluded from both earned and maximum points; they never count against the practice, and we look at them together in your review
Generated
July 28, 2026
Category breakdown
IN YOUR REVIEW = these signals need a closer look than patient-facing data alone allows, so we walk through them together in your review. They are excluded from the score entirely and never count against the practice.
1Local Search Visibility
59%
Your Google profile is a real asset: strong aesthetic categories and a post within the last 30 days. The empty Q&A section is the clear miss, since it leaves common patient questions unanswered right where they compare you. Your service menu and photos need a closer look together than public data allowed.
1.1 GBP Claim & Completeness 2 / 3
1.2 GBP Categories 3 / 3
1.3 Service Menu on GBP In your review
1.4 GBP Photo Volume & Recency In your review
1.5 GBP Posts Frequency 2 / 3
1.6 Local Pack Presence (Primary Terms) In your review
1.7 Q&A Section Activation 0 / 3
2Website & Infrastructure
57%
Your homepage puts a booking button up front, which is exactly what patients want to see first. The weak points are conversion depth: no live scheduler behind that button, financing confined to the homepage, and middle-of-the-pack mobile speed. Each one loses a share of patients who were ready to act.
2.1 Mobile Speed Score 2 / 3
2.2 Above-the-Fold Booking CTA 3 / 3
2.3 Online Scheduling Integration 1 / 3
2.4 Branded Treatment Page Coverage In your review
2.5 Financing Surfacing 1 / 3
3Reputation, Trust & Innovation
100%
This is your strongest area. You reply to every Google review, which signals an engaged owner. Most of this category, your before-and-after gallery, patient evidence, and certification visibility, was not scorable from public data, so we walk through it together to confirm how those trust signals land with patients.
3.1 Google Review Volume (Market-Relative) In your review
3.2 Review Response Discipline 3 / 3
3.3 Before/After Gallery Depth & Consent In your review
3.4 Board Certification & Society Visibility In your review
3.5 Patient Evidence Beyond Stars In your review
3.6 Innovation Leadership & First-Mover Evidence In your review
4Content & Discoverability (incl. AEO)
72%
AI search already names and links you, which few practices can claim and which matters as more patients ask AI tools for recommendations. The gap is your site code: it labels you as a generic organization, not a medical clinic, so search engines read you less precisely than they could.
4.1 Blog Recency & Topical Depth In your review
4.2 Visibility in AI search 3 / 3
4.3 Schema Markup Completeness 1 / 3
4.4 Podcast/Video Content Indexing In your review
5Paid Media Presence
n/a
Paid media was not examined this pass. We did not check ad activity on Meta or Google, so there is nothing scored here yet. Whether paid presence is worth it for you is a question we cover in the review, not a gap to assume.
5.1 Meta Ad Activity & Creative Variety In your review
5.2 Google Ads Presence (Competitive Terms) In your review
5.3 Landing Page Alignment In your review
6Social & Community
67%
Your Instagram link hub gives followers several routes, a decent baseline. Posting cadence, engagement, and content mix were not retrievable from public data despite a sizable following, so how well that audience converts to consultations is a live question for the review.
6.1 Instagram Posting Cadence In your review
6.2 Engagement Rate In your review
6.3 Content Mix Diversity In your review
6.4 Link-in-Bio Strategy 2 / 3
6.5 Story Highlights Organization In your review
7Identity & Citation Consistency
n/a
Directory and brand consistency across the web could not be scored from public data this pass. For a multi-location chain, whether your name, address, and phone number line up everywhere is worth confirming directly, since mismatches quietly split how patients and search engines find you.
7.1 NAP Consistency Across Directories In your review
7.2 Aesthetic-Directory Presence In your review
7.3 One consistent identity online In your review
7.4 Cross-Channel Brand Consistency In your review
Fractional Aesthetics

That is the whole read: 12 signals measured from what a patient can see. The rest we go through together.

Prepared for Specimen XIV, a Canadian med-spa chain (Toronto) · July 28, 2026 · Rubric v1.1

Download this scorecard (PDF) ↓ All sixteen samples →

Want one for your practice?

Complimentary, no call required, and every scorecard is prepared and personally reviewed before it goes out. Leave your practice's website and yours is on its way.

Run my audit →