SEO

No, and nobody can - Google decides that, and it changes its mind several times a year. What's actually being sold is the work and the reporting: the fixes shipped, the pages optimised, the articles published, and what moved afterwards. Rankings are on the published list of things I won't promise, which is a shorter conversation than discovering it in month four.

The sprint, if nobody has ever properly audited the site - it finds what's broken and hands you a prioritised list, and part of its cost comes off a retainer that starts soon after. If the technical side is already sound and what you need is steady output, go straight to a monthly tier. There used to be a separate standalone audit product and it was deleted on purpose: two versions of the same first step just makes the choice harder.

No, and that's the honest boundary. The sprint produces a deep audit, a prioritised technical fix list and on-page recommendations for a capped number of priority pages, plus a call to walk through them. Implementation beyond those caps is quoted before it starts. An audit that promises to fix whatever it happens to find is a blank cheque written by whoever wrote the site.

Yes, and the count is stated rather than vague. Foundation includes one standard article a month; growth includes either two premium articles or four standard ones, named in the scope so nobody guesses in month two. If you want more than that, they're priced individually on the blog card.

Longer than anyone wants to hear. Technical fixes can show up in weeks; anything competitive is months, and a brand-new site is longer still. The monthly report exists so you can watch it move rather than take my word for it, and both retainers run on a three-month minimum for the same reason - a single month of SEO tells you nothing at all.