fix(geo): I6 — every stat was real and attached to the wrong claim

Audited each statistic in agents/resources/ against primary sources after
the VSI fiction (I2) showed WebSearch launders SEO-blog consensus.

The failure mode is not invention — it is plausible recombination, which is
what a model half-remembering a search result produces:

- "Adding statistics increases AI visibility by up to 40% (Aggarwal et al.)"
  — paper real (KDD 2024), number real, SCOPE WRONG: 40% is the aggregate
  over the whole method set, domain-dependent. No per-technique figure
  exists.
- "Pages not updated quarterly are 3x more likely to lose AI citations
  (LLMRefs)" — LLMrefs' actual 3x says brand mentions correlate ~3x more
  strongly with AI visibility than backlinks. DIFFERENT SUBJECT. No source
  supports a quarterly decay multiplier.
- "QAPage cited 58% more often than Article" — uncited. Nearest real number:
  AccuraCast 2025, `Person` schema at 58.9% PREVALENCE among cited sources —
  wrong type, and its FAQPage figure (1.8%) points the opposite way to the
  claim it propped up. This one drove Tier 1 ranking.
- "62% of searches involve voice" — uncited; 62% circulates as smart-speaker
  ADOPTION. Same family as the "50% by 2020" myth ComScore denied (origin: a
  2014 Andrew Ng interview).

Corrected my own framing too: I claimed three times these stats "drive axis
weights". They do not — the weight tables carry no citations. They drive
Tier/priority recommendations and, worse, geo-analyzer's "Cite sources" rule
pushed them into CLIENT reports as research-backed.

Fixes: recommendations kept on mechanism, fabricated numbers removed with
the incident documented inline so they are not re-added. Unverified stats
(48% AI Overviews, 2.5B queries/day, Gartner -25%) labelled [UNVERIFIED]
rather than asserted or deleted — I did not check them.

Structural, not just exhortation: resources/README.md now mandates
`<claim> — <source, year, venue|vendor> — measured: <what the source ACTUALLY
measured> — <link>`. `measured:` is the field that catches this — all four
errors survive a source name; none survives stating the real measurement
next to the claim. WebSearch demoted from verification to crawler/tool-name
lookup only.

Verified: make test 35 GREEN / 0 RED.

agents/resources/README.md

@@ -17,7 +17,52 @@ Loaded on demand — keep each file focused and current.
 
 These files capture state as of 2026-04. Crawler lists, Schema.org
 deprecations, and tool landscape shift fast. Agents MUST cross-check
-via WebSearch on each run when FULL depth is selected.
+crawler lists and tool names via WebSearch on each run when FULL depth is
+selected.
+
+## Citation standard (mandatory for every statistic)
+
+**WebSearch is NOT verification for a number.** It ranks SEO blogs, and SEO
+blogs cross-cite each other into a consensus that looks like corroboration.
+Two 2026-07-16 audits of this directory show how it fails:
+
+- A "VSI (Visual Stability Index) — new 2026 Core Web Vital" lived in
+  `seo-analyzer.md`. Ten blogs asserted it; several claimed CrUX already
+  collected it. It is absent from the CrUX API metric list and from
+  web.dev. WebSearch returned the echo, not the truth.
+- Every stat in this directory was real **and attached to the wrong
+  subject**: the GEO paper's 40% (all methods) pinned on one technique;
+  LLMrefs' 3x (brand mentions vs backlinks) pinned on freshness decay;
+  AccuraCast's 58.9% (Person schema prevalence) pinned on QAPage lift, with
+  its meaning inverted; a smart-speaker adoption figure sold as voice-search
+  share.
+
+The failure mode is not invention — it is **plausible recombination**, which
+is exactly what a model half-remembering a search result produces. So the
+format has to make an unsourced number conspicuous:
+
+```
+<claim> — <source, year, venue|vendor> — measured: <what the source ACTUALLY
+measured> — <link>
+```
+
+`measured:` is the field that catches it. All four errors above survive a
+source name; none survives having to state the source's real measurement
+next to the claim.
+
+Rules:
+1. **Primary source or no number.** Peer-reviewed paper, the vendor's own
+   published study, or an official API/doc. `developer.chrome.com/docs/crux`
+   is decisive for metrics: what CrUX cannot return, we cannot score.
+2. **Name the tier.** Peer review ≠ vendor marketing. LLMrefs, AccuraCast,
+   Ahrefs publish useful data and sell products — say "vendor".
+3. **Never widen scope.** An aggregate result is not a per-technique result.
+4. **No number beats a wrong number.** A recommendation that only stands up
+   with a fabricated statistic was never standing up. Delete the stat, keep
+   the recommendation if it survives on mechanism.
+5. **Unverified ⇒ labelled.** `[UNVERIFIED — <date>]` inline. Never quote an
+   unverified number to a client: `geo-analyzer.md` ("Cite sources") sends
+   these into client reports as research-backed.
 
 ## Loading pattern