B2B SEO provider review worksheet
The report has arrived. Use this record to check the work you agreed, see what a buyer can now do and settle what needs to happen next.
Go to the worksheetReviewed
The short answer
Review one agreed deliverable at a time. Open the live URL or other promised evidence, repeat the acceptance check and record the named reviewer. Keep observations separate from claims about what caused an enquiry. Agree a correction, acceptance or next question with an owner and review date.
Open the agreed work and the live result together
A provider report can leave you with a simple unanswered question: what can I actually accept as complete? You should not need to learn a reporting tool to discuss a missing document link or an unfinished product page. Bring the scope you agreed, ask for the delivered URL or other evidence, and review one piece of work at a time.
This B2B SEO provider review worksheet is for work already under way or delivered. If the agreement says research or recommendations, the evidence may be a reviewed document rather than a published page. If it says a live page, ask to see that page. Do not quietly turn an agreed research task into a demand for published work.
Still agreeing the work? Use the provider brief before this review.
Check completion in words your team can verify
Use the acceptance check in your agreement. For a product-page update, that might mean the product owner confirms the facts, a buyer can open the current data sheet, and a test enquiry reaches the right inbox. Name who checked it and when. A screenshot of a draft does not establish that a live enquiry step works.
If no one agreed a check, acknowledge the gap and settle a reasonable one together. Ask what the buyer should be able to understand or do after the change. Keep new requests separate from corrections to the agreed work. This record helps a conversation; it does not replace your contract or decide an invoice dispute.
Provider review worksheet
Copy into your own document to fill it in. This page does not collect your answers.
View the full worksheet
B2B SEO provider review record Business / provider: Review date / period: Named business reviewer / provider contact: Agreed scope reference: Repeat for each agreed piece of work Agreed deliverable and its purpose: What was outside this agreement: Delivered live URL or other agreed evidence: Change made / publication date: Acceptance check we agreed: Who checked it / when / result: Buyer question this should help answer: What the buyer can now do / still cannot do: Factual reviewer / approval record: Observations and limits What we observed / source / date: Test activity excluded from enquiry counts: What we do not know, including attribution: Other changes that may affect the observation: Decision and follow-up Accept this deliverable / request a correction / clarify evidence / pause: Reason, tied to the agreed acceptance check: Blocker / person who can resolve it: Next action / named owner / agreed review date: Provider response or unresolved disagreement: Any new work requiring separate scope and approval: Keep commercial decisions within your agreement. This record is not a provider grade or a payment ruling.
Separate what happened from what caused it
Keep the live-work check and commercial observations in separate parts of the record. 'The current sheet opens on a phone' is a check you can repeat. 'We received an enquiry on Tuesday' needs its own source and date. It does not, by itself, show which website change caused that enquiry.
Record what you cannot establish. You might have an inbox message but no reliable record of how the buyer found you. A trade-show conversation, repeat customer or catalogue email may also matter. Exclude your own test messages from commercial enquiry counts. Avoid turning a gap in tracking into either a provider success claim or a failure accusation.
- The agreed check passes
Decision to discuss
Accept that piece of work
What to record
Evidence, reviewer and any separate observation still pending
- A promised function or approved fact is wrong
Decision to discuss
Request a specific correction
What to record
The failed check, correction owner and next review date
- The evidence or agreement is unclear
Decision to discuss
Clarify before deciding
What to record
The question and who can settle it
- A required approval or dependency is missing
Decision to discuss
Pause that affected item
What to record
The blocker, its owner and work that can still proceed
| What you find | Decision to discuss | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| The agreed check passes | Accept that piece of work | Evidence, reviewer and any separate observation still pending |
| A promised function or approved fact is wrong | Request a specific correction | The failed check, correction owner and next review date |
| The evidence or agreement is unclear | Clarify before deciding | The question and who can settle it |
| A required approval or dependency is missing | Pause that affected item | The blocker, its owner and work that can still proceed |
A completed fictional review with one unfinished step
The following record is fully invented. It shows an owner accepting the parts that passed a check while keeping a failed attachment step open. The business, people, dates and observations are illustrative, not Plact customer evidence.
Completed fictional review example
This fictional worked example is open so you can see how a completed record reads.
View the full example
Fictional completed provider review. All people and work below are invented. Business / provider: Cedar Pump Supply / Westbank Website Studio Review date / period: 10 September 2026 / agreed range-page update Named business reviewer / provider contact: Meera Shah / Alex Reed Agreed scope reference: Cedar's fictional scope note CP-07, item 2 Agreed deliverable and purpose: Update the process-pump range page, current data-sheet link and model field so a maintenance buyer can identify the range and ask about a model. Outside this agreement: New articles, paid advertising and changes to other product ranges. Delivered live URL: https://example.com/products/process-pumps (illustrative URL, not a customer page) Change made / publication date: Approved range copy, data-sheet link and model field published 8 September 2026 in this fictional example. Agreed acceptance check: Meera opens the page and current sheet on a phone, then sends an agreed test enquiry with a model and attachment; sales confirms receipt. Check / reviewer / date: Meera, 10 September. Range and sheet correct. Model received by sales. Attachment absent from the test email. Buyer usefulness: A buyer can find the model sheet and specify a model. The attachment step still needs correction. Factual approval: Product owner Arun Das approved copy and sheet revision C in scope note CP-07 on 7 September. Observation / source / date: Sales inbox contains Meera's test message on 10 September, without its file. Test excluded from commercial enquiry counts. Unknown attribution: No evidence yet connecting this page change to a commercial enquiry or order. Search impact has not been assessed. Other changes: A catalogue email went to existing customers on 9 September; any later enquiry may have more than one influence. Decision: Accept the range copy and data-sheet update. Request correction of the attachment step before closing that deliverable. Blocker / owner: Alex needs the website maintainer, Jo Ellis, to investigate the missing file. Next action / owner / date: Jo checks file handling; Alex reports back to Meera on the agreed 14 September review date. Meera repeats the test after the correction. Provider response: Alex acknowledged the failed attachment test. The cause is still unknown. Separate scope: A suggested new application page is recorded for later discussion, not treated as part of CP-07.
Leave with an owner and a next review date
Send the record to the provider and invite corrections to the facts. If the two of you disagree, write down the disputed point and the evidence needed to resolve it. A blocker may belong to your team: an unapproved claim, an old catalogue or a missed review. Naming it helps the right person act.
Choose whether to accept the deliverable, request a correction, clarify the evidence or pause the affected work. Agree the next action and review date together. Do not add a universal lead quota or ROI threshold to a task that was scoped differently.
If ownership or permissions caused the delay, revisit the provider handoff checklist.
If an enquiry needs a human decision, use the industrial enquiry assessment template.
See how Plact connects search work with a useful enquiry path.
Source note
- Do you need an SEO? · Google Search Central; reviewed 2026-09-10. Google recommends asking providers how they communicate, explain site changes and measure success. It cautions against guaranteed rankings. Those principles support asking for clear evidence; Google does not prescribe this worksheet.
Plact wrote the worksheet, decision options and fictional record. They are practical review suggestions, not a Google-approved method, a grading system or evidence of commercial results.
Questions B2B teams ask
When should we use the provider review worksheet?
Use it when an agreed piece of work is ready for review, or at a review date you have agreed with the provider. It checks delivered work. The provider brief helps before selection; the onboarding checklist settles information, access and responsibilities before work starts.
Can we accept a page update before enquiries increase?
You can check whether the agreed page update meets its acceptance conditions while recording commercial results as unknown. Keep delivery acceptance and observations separate. Use your agreement for commercial decisions; this worksheet does not set a universal return or decide payment.
What if we disagree about whether the work is complete?
Record the disputed acceptance check, each person's explanation and the evidence needed to resolve it. Name who will check the issue and agree a next review date. Keep newly requested work separate from a correction to the original scope.