R2 — Schema markup is rich-result ELIGIBILITY, not a ranking boost; stop claiming otherwise in client materials

Rule: In any Candid client material, present schema markup as rich-result eligibility (cheap insurance) — not as a ranking lever or as a proven AI-citation lever.

Why: Google's own documentation: "Using structured data enables a feature to be present, it does not guarantee that it will be present" (Google documentation — structured data makes pages ELIGIBLE for rich results, NOT a generic ranking boost ("enables a feature to be present, does not guarantee that it will be present")). John Mueller: "There's no generic ranking boost for SD usage" (John Mueller (Google) via Search Engine Journal — "There's no generic ranking boost for SD usage"). Google is narrowing rich-result features (Google has been NARROWING rich-result features — FAQ rich results deprecated May 7, 2026; seven types retired June 2025). No independent or primary evidence that schema markup itself lifts AI citation (GAP — no independent or primary evidence that schema markup ITSELF improves AI-answer citation; vendor claims (FAQ schema → 2.8× citations, author schema → 3×) are single-source and unverified). The peer-reviewed GEO lift came from body text, not schema (GEO paper — critical methodology caveat: the lifts come from BODY-TEXT edits, NOT schema markup; authors explicitly note "less likely to affect search engine rankings").

How to apply:

• Ship schema for the rich-result types that still exist and serve the business (LocalBusiness, Product, Article, etc.).
• Do not promise ranking or citation lift in proposals.
• When a vendor or competitor claims "schema = ranking," flag the Google docs.