Groundcrew G4 — Fix My Site: One Real Run, With the Receipts

Groundcrew G4 — Fix My Site: One Real Run, With the Receipts

A TrustGrowth audit surfaced one bounded structural problem: a page had multiple <h1> elements. This walkthrough follows that finding from audit to a human-reviewed remediation change, deployment, and a re-check of the live page.

The evidence is deliberately narrow. It documents audit 614, finding type multiple_h1, issue IDs 8543 and 8144. It does not establish a general product contract or predict what will happen for another page, site, or finding type.

The observed run

The recorded chain for this run was:

1. TrustGrowth audit 614 recorded the multiple_h1 finding as issue IDs 8543 and 8144.
2. The proposed remediation was opened as a pull request in our repository.
3. A human reviewed and merged the pull request.
4. The merged change deployed at commit d1dcdec2.
5. Re-audit job c5ffe50e-81c0-4b05-bbb9-8abd793e1f41 checked the post-deploy state.

The repository change is not public, so we do not present it as inspectable proof. The publicly checkable artifact for this run is the live page itself, at the timestamp recorded below.

Measured output

The affected live page was re-checked at 2026-07-22T16:51:37Z. The sanitized transcript recorded:

HTTP/2 200
h1_count=1

The re-audit then reported zero fresh or current-open matches for that multiple_h1 finding after the human-reviewed merge and deploy.

That is the full measured claim: the live page returned HTTP 200, contained one <h1> at the stated timestamp, and the specific finding was not current-open in the re-audit. This is not a ranking, traffic, conversion, or score result.

What is open to inspect

Without connecting an account, a reader can load the live page and check its current state directly. That is the artifact we are putting forward; the code change behind it is not public and we are not asking you to take its contents on trust.

The audit number, issue IDs, deploy reference, and re-audit job ID preserve the internal evidence chain for this run. They are identifiers, not a claim that every underlying record has a public detail page.

What connecting TrustGrowth added in this run

For this run, connected TrustGrowth held the audit finding and the later re-audit evidence. That gave the team a before-and-after workflow record around the reviewed change and the live-page check.

This run does not show that connecting an account changes the number or type of remediation proposals. It does not show that Google Search Console was required. It also does not establish a content-writing surface or parity with any MCP interface.

Where automation stopped

The evidence chain includes a pull request and a human merge before deployment. For this run, the proposed change did not reach the live page without that review step.

That observation should not be expanded into a universal claim about every workflow. It only describes what happened between audit 614, the reviewed change, deploy d1dcdec2, and the subsequent re-audit.

What this run does not prove

This evidence does not prove:

• rankings, traffic, conversions, or score improvement;
• universal accuracy or success on other findings;
• superiority over another product;
• autonomous deployment;
• a TrustGrowth content-write surface; or
• MCP parity.

The point of publishing the run is not to turn one structural check into a broad outcome claim. It is to give readers a timestamped live-page observation they can re-check, and the identifiers that connect the audit and re-audit.

Inspect the artifacts

Open the live page and check it yourself. That page, and the timestamped observation above, are the externally verifiable parts of this Groundcrew G4 run. The repository change is not public, so we do not present it as inspectable proof.