/ Merchant Center audit

A Merchant audit that checks the entire store before review

Type: Demonstration report · Mode: Synthetic, internally consistent data · Period: Synthetic readiness snapshot

Interface status is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Site, schema, feed, Merchant and checkout are reconciled before blockers, risks and nonissues are named.

2 · fix before review1 · investigate

About this report and how to read the metrics

The store, products and statuses are synthetic. The report does not promise Google approval.

01 / in short

Summary

Readiness: not ready. Two verified consistency blockers require fixes and recheck.

Fix: Align shipping cost and return window across site, feed and Merchant.
Verify: Review affected items without treating low price as counterfeit proof.
Do not submit: Do not request review until blocker closure is verified.

All metrics

Metric	Value
products · 990 approved + 210 affected = 1,200	1,200
manually sampled · all main groups	40
confirmed blockers · before re-review	2
verdict · not a Google score	not ready

02 / audit map

What we checked.

Each tile is one area we checked. Select it to open the finding.

01 / site, feed and MerchantFix before reviewShipping cost differs in three representationsBuyer and Google see conflicting terms. A correct checkout does not remove the public mismatch.02 / policy, product footer and MerchantFix before reviewThe return window is inconsistentThis is a testable consistency issue, not generic trust advice.03 / diagnostics, sample and manager inputInvestigateThe risk group needs proof, not an accusationLow price does not prove violation; a legitimate sale is plausible.

03 / where to start

First steps.

First, what every later decision depends on.

01Close shipping and return blockers.→ Shipping rules match for 4 / 4 regions across site, feed, Merchant and mobile checkout.
02Recheck affected items and final render.→ No verified blockers remain.
03Monitor feed drift and policy changes.→ The monthly review leaves no unexplained feed or policy drift, and every change has an owner and timestamp.

The full plan is in the detailed review below.

04 / findings

Every finding in three lines.

Numbers and evidence for your marketer sit under “details”.

Fix before review01 / site, feed and Merchant · confidence high

Shipping cost differs in three representations

What we see

Two of four regions show different rules across site, feed and Merchant.

Why it matters

Buyer and Google see conflicting terms. A correct checkout does not remove the public mismatch.

What we do

The ecommerce manager, feed specialist and Merchant specialist align one shipping table. Acceptance: 4 / 4 regions match on site, feed, Merchant and mobile checkout.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: site, feed and Merchant. Period: synthetic snapshot. Status: confirmed consistency defect. Confidence: high. Coverage: four regions.

Fix before review02 / policy, product footer and Merchant · confidence high

The return window is inconsistent

What we see

Policy and Merchant state different windows, while product pages omit return cost.

Why it matters

This is a testable consistency issue, not generic trust advice.

What we do

The business manager and legal lead confirm the actual terms. Acceptance: window, method, cost, refund timing and contact match and remain public.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: policy, product footer and Merchant. Period: snapshot. Status: confirmed content gap. Confidence: high. Coverage: all policy surfaces.

Investigate03 / diagnostics, sample and manager input · confidence low

The risk group needs proof, not an accusation

What we see

Price and brand claims look unusual, but no direct counterfeit evidence was found.

Why it matters

Low price does not prove violation; a legitimate sale is plausible.

What we do

The business manager verifies origin securely. Acceptance: keep or remove decision documented without PII or credentials in the report.

details for the specialist

Details: Source: diagnostics, sample and manager input. Period: snapshot. Status: risk profile. Confidence: low. Coverage: 8 of 40 products.

Full findings table

Findings

Area	Finding	Evidence	Why it matters	What we do	Confidence	Decision	Details
site, feed and Merchant	Shipping cost differs in three representations	Two of four regions show different rules across site, feed and Merchant.	Buyer and Google see conflicting terms. A correct checkout does not remove the public mismatch.	The ecommerce manager, feed specialist and Merchant specialist align one shipping table. Acceptance: 4 / 4 regions match on site, feed, Merchant and mobile checkout.	high	Fix before review	Source: site, feed and Merchant. Period: synthetic snapshot. Status: confirmed consistency defect. Confidence: high. Coverage: four regions.
policy, product footer and Merchant	The return window is inconsistent	Policy and Merchant state different windows, while product pages omit return cost.	This is a testable consistency issue, not generic trust advice.	The business manager and legal lead confirm the actual terms. Acceptance: window, method, cost, refund timing and contact match and remain public.	high	Fix before review	Source: policy, product footer and Merchant. Period: snapshot. Status: confirmed content gap. Confidence: high. Coverage: all policy surfaces.
diagnostics, sample and manager input	The risk group needs proof, not an accusation	Price and brand claims look unusual, but no direct counterfeit evidence was found.	Low price does not prove violation; a legitimate sale is plausible.	The business manager verifies origin securely. Acceptance: keep or remove decision documented without PII or credentials in the report.	low	Investigate	Source: diagnostics, sample and manager input. Period: snapshot. Status: risk profile. Confidence: low. Coverage: 8 of 40 products.

05 / limitations and scope

Limitations and scope

Limitations: Supplier authorization for one risk group is unavailable. That is uncertainty, not proof of violation.

Coverage: 40 of 1,200 products, all policy routes, checkout to payment and account diagnostics.

Sources:

Home, product, cart, checkout and policies
Merchant information and diagnostics
Feed export and Product schema
Mobile journey without placing an order

06 / detailed review

Full data for your marketer.

Every table and calculation from the audit. Owners can skip it.

Plan

What	Who	Result	Horizon
Close shipping and return blockers.	Ecommerce manager, feed specialist and Merchant specialist	Shipping rules match for 4 / 4 regions across site, feed, Merchant and mobile checkout.	7 days
Recheck affected items and final render.	Merchant specialist	No verified blockers remain.	30 days
Monitor feed drift and policy changes.	Merchant specialist	The monthly review leaves no unexplained feed or policy drift, and every change has an owner and timestamp.	90 days

Measurement

Status: Readiness not ready

990 approved + 210 affected = 1,200 products. The decision rests on two open verified blockers, not a score.

What already works

Preserve checkout and approved items

Evidence: 990 / 1,200 products are approved and checkout reaches payment.

Decision: Do not create a new account, feed or domain. Make durable fixes and recheck.

Target state and change rules

Target state: The site, feed, Merchant, and mobile checkout show the same terms, with both blockers closed by evidence.

How we test: Local QA is followed by a 40-product control sample before resubmission.

When we roll back: If the control sample finds another mismatch, resubmission stops and the change returns to the source owner.

Full audit map

11 checks

The three decisions above give an executive summary. The complete review register below shows the checks behind those decisions.

This page shows 11 of 11 checks in the demonstration register. A client report also links each check to its source, accountable role, and working artifact.

11 steps before re-review

Confirmed mismatches and acceptance criteria determine readiness, not a decorative score.

Check	Priority	Decision	What we established	What we established
MC-01	P0	Align	Put delivery rules in one source table.	For two of four regions, the site, feed, and Merchant show different terms.
MC-02	P0	Align	Confirm the return period and cost.	The policy and Merchant conflict, while the product page does not explain the cost.
MC-03	P1	Verify	Match business name and legal details.	The site and Merchant should show the same data.
MC-04	P1	Verify	Reconcile price and stock for 40 products.	The sample covers all main groups and the mobile journey.
MC-05	P1	Investigate	Verify provenance for eight risk products.	Unusual pricing is a risk signal, not evidence of a violation.
MC-06	P1	Fix	Align GTIN, brand, and condition.	Identifiers are checked against the supplier source.
MC-07	P2	Protect	Do not create a new account or domain.	990 products are approved; the blockers are local and fixable.
MC-08	P2	Verify	Run mobile checkout up to payment.	Price, delivery, and currency must match the feed.
MC-09	P2	Document	Record an accountable role and proof for every fix.	A re-review needs a reproducible artifact rather than a promise.
MC-10	P2	Resubmit	Request review after both blockers close.	Early submission does not remove the rejection cause.
MC-11	P3	Monitor	Reconcile policies and feed data after every change.	Readiness can regress after delivery, price, or catalog updates.

Method and appendices

Site ↔ feed ↔ Merchant ↔ checkout matrix
40-product checklist and sampling rules
Blocker, risk, and non-issue register
Resubmission and monitoring log

What the client gets

Evidence matrix
Site, schema, feed and MC consistency
Blockers, risks and nonissues
Fix register and recheck
Readiness without approval guarantee

/ next step

Next step with UPLIFY

Need to prepare a store for Merchant review?

We separate verified blockers from risks and verify fixes before the human decision.

Discuss an audit for your business