B&J case study — critical overclaim guards (READ BEFORE WRITING)

These are things the KB and any case-study writer needs to know to write accurately about this engagement without overclaiming.

1. The marketing site is on a dev URL (bjweb.candidcreative.ca), not the production domain, as of the most recent audit. Production cutover from WordPress has not yet happened. Case-study language must reflect this — the site is "in build with the agriculture vertical and 50+ pages live on the development surface" rather than "launched."

2. The CRM is scoped and schema-designed but not built. Phase 1 has not started development. The case study can describe the data model and the architecture decisions, but cannot claim the CRM is live, used by staff, or replacing spreadsheets — because none of those things are true yet.

3. The customer portal is Phase 2 of CRM, not yet built.

4. "Walk with quiet confidence" is the positioning posture, not a public tagline. It should never appear in customer-facing copy as a slogan. It is shorthand for the editorial discipline. [Verified — positioning principle]

5. Manifold is its own product, not a B&J asset. When the case study describes the data layer powering embedded widgets on the B&J site, it should name Manifold as a Candid Creative product (with its own URL, manifold.candidcreative.ca), not as part of the B&J build.

6. Davis & McCauley is being absorbed, not retired. The London brand is going through a transition page strategy, not a brand-kill. Write about it that way.

7. Tech-stack documents in the project knowledge are partially superseded. BoucherJones_MarketingSite_TechStack.docx references Next.js 15, no Tailwind, and Express 5 — all of which have been changed in the live repo. The CLAUDE.md in the bj-next repo is the live source of truth. When the KB writes about the stack, the version in B&J marketing site stack (bj-next, dev URL bjweb.candidcreative.ca) — VERIFIED LIVE STACK is correct.

8. Foundation research depth is the genuinely differentiating Candid Creative input. The case study should not undersell this. 20+ research documents — each with confidence labeling, Canadian/Ontario sourcing, inline citations, and verbatim quotes where specified — feed the content layer. This is what makes the regulatory-citation discipline possible.

9. The biggest single technical gap as of the most recent audit is JSON-LD schema. It will be deployed pre-launch; the case study should not pretend it is already deployed if writing during this window.

10. No production-traffic data exists yet. CrUX, GSC, GA4 — none of these have meaningful data because the site has not had a cutover. The case study spec sheet should not invent KPIs from these sources.