<b>A trust signal is a claim; a trust proof survives investigation</b>

<b>A trust signal is a claim; a trust proof survives investigation</b>

The question: what separates a trust signal that works from one that does not?

The distinction is whether it survives the reputation research a rater is instructed to perform. The QRG's investigative posture — leave the site, search independently, weigh source credibility — means trust elements split cleanly into two classes.

Claims assert trust from your own pages: a badge graphic, an 'award-winning' line, a self-written 'trusted by thousands', a five-star widget you control. These are signals only in the weak sense; under investigation they resolve to your own assertion and add little, because the guidelines explicitly discount what a site says about itself.

Proofs are claims that pay off when investigated: a named certification that exists in the issuer's public registry; an award that appears on the awarding body's own site; reviews on independent platforms you do not control; press in outlets with their own reputation; a credential verifiable in a professional registry. The test is simple — if a skeptical rater searches for the third-party source, does it exist and corroborate the claim, or does the trail end at you?

The practical audit: list every trust element on a page and mark each as claim or proof. Convert claims into proofs where you can earn them, and remove the ones you cannot back, because an investigated-and-falsified claim is worse than no claim at all.

Caveat: even genuine proofs are weighted by source credibility; a real badge from an obscure or pay-to-list body is weak.

What we still don't know: how much of this proof-versus-claim distinction the systems detect automatically versus relying on it surfacing through the link and mention graph.