R4 — Do NOT generalise the Nestlé 82% CTR figure; it is one company's self-measurement, never present as typical

Rule: When the Nestlé "82% higher CTR on rich-results pages" figure appears in Candid content (article, deck, proposal, client conversation), it is always framed as "one named company reported" and never as a typical, expected, or generalisable result. We do not write "structured data lifts CTR by 82%."

Why: Nestlé 82% higher CTR on rich-results pages — Google's own documentation, attributed to one named company; RING-FENCED, never present as typical — the figure is verbatim from Google's documentation but is a single company's self-measurement, with no fuller case study and no peer or independent corroboration. Google itself states (Google Search Central — structured data produces eligibility, not a guarantee; does not guarantee rich results even with correct markup) that structured data produces eligibility, not a guarantee, and is "not a direct ranking factor." The vendor temptation to launder Nestlé's number into a universal multiplier is exactly the editorial-discipline failure mode we are guarding against.

How to apply:

• Allowed phrasing: "Google's own documentation cites one company (Nestlé) reporting an 82% CTR uplift on rich-result pages; this is one company's self-measurement and should not be read as typical."
• Disallowed phrasing: "Structured data boosts CTR by 82%." / "Pages with rich results get 82% more clicks."
• The same discipline applies to all single-company CTR / conversion figures.