# The outline we rejected

This initial outline was authored for the demonstration. It was not copied from a competitor or represented as a previous published article.

1. What is a sitemap?
2. Every XML tag explained.
3. Why recent dates improve SEO.
4. Refresh all dates after each deployment.
5. Choose a sitemap generator.
6. Submit the sitemap and track rankings.

## Why it fails this assignment

It turns a precise decision into a broad setup guide. R01–R03 already provide rules and format explanations, so repeating that structure gives the writer little reason to add the worked evidence. Items 3 and 6 imply outcomes this research does not establish. Item 4 conflicts with the field definition in S2. Item 5 requires product research that is irrelevant to deciding this page's date.

## What the research changed

| Evidence or observation | Change to the assignment |
| --- | --- |
| R01 and R02 provide an authoritative rule and definition. | Start with the decision; link to the technical references instead of rewriting them. |
| R03's broad claim needs qualification. | Require a reason for each classification. C4 tests whether the writer confuses edit size with significance. |
| R04 covers uncertainty. | Include C3 with no reliable page history; the answer must remain usable when evidence is missing. |
| R05's body could not be inspected. | Remove any claim that competitors lack our example. |
| The reader needs a decision for a specific page. | Replace the generator roundup with four change records and their expected outputs. |

The revised brief starts with what the reader must choose, then supplies the evidence to make and check that choice. It asks for a completed exercise rather than an expanded list of headings.