Is It Out of Scope? — SEO & marketing
Is fixing issues caused by the client's own edits out of scope for an SEO retainer?
Yes, as extra work. Rankings damage from the client's own unreviewed site changes isn't a retainer failure.
A client publishes a page, changes a URL structure, or removes content without checking with the SEO team first, rankings drop, and the request comes back as "why did our rankings drop" — implying the retainer should absorb the fix.
Is it out of scope?
Yes, as unbudgeted extra work. Diagnosing and unwinding damage from the client's own unreviewed changes is real time spent, but it isn't a shortfall in the SEO work the retainer covers.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Client responsibilities clause→ — Places responsibility for the ranking impact of the client's own unreviewed site changes on the client, distinct from a shortfall in the retainer's own work.
Example contract wording
Example contract wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
The drop traces to the URL change made on your side without a review pass — diagnosing and fixing that is real time, so I'd bill it separately from the retainer's regular scope.
How MarginFlow flags it
MarginFlow flags remediation requests outside_scope on SEO contracts when the timeline shows a client-side change preceded the ranking drop, rather than a gap in the retainer's own work.