Internal QA appendix · not for client distribution
A line-by-line comparison of the website proposal against the current source-of-truth deck, PSL RFP 2026 working - Updated MASTER.pptx (67 slides + speaker notes). This master supersedes the 54-slide working deck the original audit ran against; the site and this appendix were re-synced to it on 7/29. Two outputs: deck content that never made it onto the site (below), and an index of the 21 claim flags placed throughout the site — red for fabrication risk, yellow for unverified or embellished.
← Back to the proposalSubstantive content in the updated master that is absent from the site. The updated deck is far more complete than its predecessor — it closed most of the old gap list (disclosure, references, bios, pricing, a named PR case study), and the site has now absorbed those answers. What remains is below.
Slide 65 · Because We're Already Partners
The deck's strongest strategic slide itemizes what the current engagement has produced: learned — website, communities, Yardi, Further, investor groups; already improved — reporting, attribution, integrations; next — AEO, PR, AI, storytelling, automation. The site carries the narrative ("Why now, not before") but not these lists — arguably the most persuasive evidence in the deck.
Slide 54 · Phoenix in 2028
A family asks ChatGPT → AI recommends Phoenix → website answers → tour booked → qualified lead in Yardi → move-in → resident story → AI cites Phoenix again: "every resident story becomes tomorrow's AI citation." The site makes each piece of this argument separately but never draws the loop as one picture.
Slide 60 · Resource model
The deck commits to a specific resource model: a core creative team (designer, copywriter, production, creative director, QA, traffic specialist, senior web developer, web coordinator), a four-person named account team, a media team (senior planner, paid, programmatic, analyst) and extended specialists that scale as needed. The site describes the bench generically.
Slide 64 · References
Beyond the three senior-living references now on the site, the deck carries full contact detail for Wasteology (Diane Gahafer, CRO), Fat Brands / Fazoli's (Stephanie Holthaus, Brand Marketing Manager) and Lexington Co-Op / Arby's. The site names them without contact detail. Note: the reference slide's layout made some name/email pairings ambiguous in extraction — have Wingspan confirm the pairings before anything client-facing uses them.
Slide 5 · Proven AI Innovation
The deck's supported AI claim is: "project management tools that utilize agentic workflows and agents" (e.g. proofreading agents in the PM tool) and investment in "proprietary AI tools" — with the reporting AI agent framed as "the future of reporting." Relevant context for the red flag below: the deck deliberately stops short of claiming a current agentic reporting beta.
Consistency check · Re-passed against the updated master
The updated deck answers Q27/28, Q32–34 (including the Vivid Impact disclosure), Q43/44/46 (with the "Sing Us a Song" case study), Q50, Q54, Q56 (named team) and Q62 (references) — and the site now carries those answers with ANSWERED status. Still genuinely open: Q2 (firm financial detail, under separate cover) and Q51 (a written case of a piloted technology and its outcome). The site's status tracker (59 answered / 3 finalizing) reflects exactly that.
Every flag placed on the proposal, in page order. ⚑ RED = fabrication risk: presents invented data as fact or contradicts the deck's deliberate posture. ⚑ YELLOW = unverified or embellished: not supported by the updated master; verify or soften before submission. Hover any flag on the site for this same context in place.
| Location | Claim | Issue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ⚑ | Hero | "All sixty-two RFP questions answered in place" | Site's own status list says 59 answered, 3 finalizing. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q2 | "Debt-conservative" | Financial characterization not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q3 | Named partner examples (production crews, PR networks, Further) | Deck never specifies which services are partner-delivered. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q47 | "Agency reviews run on three-year cycles" | Unsourced industry statistic. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q47 | "Financial services and higher education" verticals | Added beyond the deck's four verticals. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q48 | Both client lists | Not in deck text; confirm names + logo clearance. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q49 | "Almost nobody in this category is measuring it yet" | Sweeping competitive claim, unsupported. |
| ⚑ | Ch 2 · governance | $127K+/mo gross spend, 65+ active campaigns | Was in the old deck; REMOVED from the updated master. Reconfirm. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · schema demo | The Retreat at Lady's Island — 4.8★, 126 reviews | Invented example data for a real community. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q32 band | "Every platform here is one we operate in production today" | Updated deck names only Google + Meta certifications. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q23 | Mailchimp and Klaviyo implementations | Platforms added beyond deck's "HubSpot, Salesforce, Yardi and more." |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q30 | Wiki field detail (credential custody, rollback…) | Deck now has wiki + test cadence; custody/rollback still site-side. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q31 | "Provisioned in PSL's name from day one" | Commitment the deck never makes. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | PSL: 8,766 conversions / 11% / $2,500 | Case-study numbers, not in deck — PSL will check them. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | St. George Village: 910 leads vs 22, $17 CPL | Case-study numbers, not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | Morning Pointe / The Blake / Wickshire figures | Case-study numbers, not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · Q22/24 | Synthetic submissions + weekly Yardi reconciliation | QA regimen not described in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 6 · Q27 | GBP management "across all 55 communities" | Deck claims "at scale," not full-portfolio coverage today. |
| ⚑ | Ch 7 · Q52/53 | "Actively developing and beta-testing an agentic layer" | Updated deck walked this back to "the future of reporting" — a vision, not a current beta. |
| ⚑ | Ch 9 · Q58/59 | 30-day account transfer, per-market cutover, weekly status | Updated deck's Days 1–30 are discovery + audit; no transfer commitments. |
| ⚑ | Ch 9 · Q36/37 | 6/12-month outcome projections | Updated deck (slide 57) explicitly sets benchmarks before engagement instead of predicting outcomes. |
Flags removed on 7/29 because the updated master now supports the claim — kept here so the trail is auditable.
Removed flags · 5
Further/Yardi integration scoping (was red) — the updated deck affirms built integrations with Further, including the Google Offline Conversions sync. · HubSpot MQL test tense — MQL/SQL scoring is now presented as the working system and is included in the monthly fee. · "Disclosed in writing" — the deck now contains the written Vivid Impact disclosure. · Premium-storytelling experience — the deck now names "Sing Us a Song" with results. · Physician-template campaign framework — the framework slide was rebuilt for PSL; no OBGYN/physician remnants remain.
Verified against the updated master rather than flagged: the 10 sub-brands and 55 communities, 350 combined years, ~500 communities served, 50 employees, 800+ businesses in 40+ states, seven-year average tenure, the GA/HubSpot/Gumshoe reporting stack, the heat map (correctly labeled illustrative), the 90-day plan, the named account team, the fee structure ($1,500/community/month; $2,000 + $400/yr website builds; 20% media commission), the "Sing Us a Song" results, and the BBC StoryWorks continuity plan. Key dates and Justin Harden as contact were verified against the RFP document itself.
← Back to the proposal