Why this page exists
Every case study published on this site falls into one of five categories. This page documents which category each post belongs to, what sources the analysis relies on, and how to request correction, additional context, or anonymization.
Note to readers: If you are named or identifiable in any case study and want a correction, additional context, or full anonymization, see Right of reply below.
A. Named subjects with explicit permission
The subject gave explicit consent to be named publicly in case studies. The original engagement is referenced openly.
| Subject | Case studies | Domain |
|---|---|---|
| Rob Tetrault / The Tetrault Wealth Advisory Group (TWAG) | Bill 226 Position 0, TWAG 104% lift | robtetrault.com |
B. Named subjects with public-source verification
The subject is named publicly. Personal context invoked in the case study (e.g., professional background, business credentials) is sourced to material the subject has themselves published. The case study cites the public source directly.
| Subject | Case study | Public-source citations |
|---|---|---|
| Bonnie Haig Art | USP / nursing identity | bonniehaig.com (portfolio site); facebook.com/Bonniehaigart April 24, 2021 post (nursing-to-art transition, art mentors named) |
C. Third-party analysis of publicly visible websites
No engagement, no NDA, no contractual relationship. Findings are opinion-on-fact about publicly observable artifacts: site crawl, public SERP data, public schema markup, public Google Business Profile data, public review counts, public press releases. Subjects are publicly visible businesses.
| Subject | Case study | Public artifacts cited |
|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Windows & Doors | SEO gap audit | cascadiawindows.com site crawl; Serper SERP pulls; Mangools + SearchVolume.io keyword data; BusinessWire releases; LeadIQ company profile |
| Distillery Events | V3.1 audit | distilleryevents.com raw HTML + JSON-LD; Google Business Profile; Yelp; SERP analysis |
| Tooth Corner | CDCP keyword mapping | toothcorner.com; Google autocomplete dataset; Government of Canada CDCP documentation |
| Solo Glass | Excalibur V2 audit | sologlass.ca site crawl; SEO PowerSuite geo-located rank data; Google Business Profile; ICBC public Glass Repair Program Guide |
| Peak 15 Systems | SaaS SEO audit | peak15systems.com site crawl; SpyFu API competitive analysis |
D. Anonymized engagements (role + region only)
A consulting engagement occurred, but the subject is not named. Identifying details are obscured to role + region. Anonymization applies regardless of whether an NDA was in place — default is to anonymize unless the subject has separately consented to naming or the relevant facts are publicly documented elsewhere.
| Reference | Case study | Anonymization scope |
|---|---|---|
| Cleveland, OH wedding photographer | Wix-to-WordPress proposal | Name and business name withheld |
| Australian 5-location adult entertainment operator | Local SEO advisory | Name, business name, and specific city locations withheld |
| Angular games site owner | Architecture / AdSense advisory | Name and domain withheld |
| UK kitchen appliance affiliate site owner | 403 collapse diagnostic | Owner name withheld; domain referenced for technical specificity |
| Top 4 Winnipeg dental practices (competitive matrix) | Market intelligence | Practice names anonymized to Practice A–D; no engagement with named practices |
E. Own work and methodology
Posts about Jonathan Nishikawa’s own projects, products, methodologies, or affiliate publishing history. No third-party subject to disclose.
Frameworks and tools:
- Ignition Key LLM Governance — own framework
- Agentic Delegation System — own methodology
- Autocomplete Multiplex Keyword Research — own methodology
- JobHarvest Lead Scoring System — own tool
- Excalibur Engine Development — own engine (worked-example references to Solo Glass + Distillery Events fall under Category C)
- Makeovelry Hugo Portfolio Build — build notes for this site
Affiliate / publishing history:
- Panic Away AdWords — own paid-affiliate work
- E-cig Affiliate — own affiliate work
- FIFA 2010 Squidoo — own published asset, later sold
- Where’s My Cell Phone AdSense — own affiliate site
Sources policy
- All claims are tagged to a specific evidence source: site crawl, public SERP data, public schema markup, Google Business Profile data, authoritative industry publication, etc.
- Claims without a verifiable source are tagged NEEDS VALIDATION, not presented as fact.
- Pricing and engagement details are disclosed only when the subject has separately published them, given consent, or when the figure can be independently corroborated from a public source.
- Where a finding has been corrected after initial publication, the correction is reflected in the post body and is preserved in the git commit history of this site’s repository.
Right of reply / correction
If you are named or identifiable in any case study published here and want a correction, additional context, full anonymization, or removal, contact:
[contact form — to be linked]
Right of reply. Named or identifiable subjects may submit a response of up to 200 words. Responses received in good faith are published verbatim, inline with the original post, within 30 days of receipt.
Corrections. Substantive factual errors will be corrected in the original post body within 7 days of verification, with a visible changelog noting the date and nature of the correction. The site repository’s git history serves as the public audit trail of all changes.
Removal. Where a subject demonstrates a reasonable basis (privacy interest, factual error that cannot be corrected, change in personal circumstance), the case study can be removed or fully anonymized.
Legal basis for case study publication
Case studies on this site are published as opinion-based commentary on matters of public interest in SEO, marketing, and digital strategy. The author relies on two established protections under Canadian law:
Fair Comment. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the modern fair-comment defence in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 — comment on a matter of public interest, based on fact, recognizable as opinion, made honestly. The Ontario Superior Court applied this directly to blog publication in Baglow v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 1175.
Responsible Communication. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this defence in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 — publication on a matter of public interest where the author has acted responsibly: verified facts, sought the subject’s response where appropriate, distinguished fact from opinion, and reported sources transparently.
Every case study on this site is written to meet both standards: factual claims are sourced and verifiable, opinion is identified as opinion, and subjects have a right of reply (see above).
What this site is, and is not
This site publishes opinion-based analysis of SEO, marketing, technical web architecture, and digital strategy. It is not legal, financial, medical, or professional advice. Case studies are illustrative of methodology, not predictive — past performance of any project does not guarantee future results. Forward-looking statements (revenue projections, opportunity sizing) are modelled estimates, not realized outcomes.
Last updated: 2026-06-03.