TS12URLs and canonicals

Does Google select your chosen canonical?

Google’s selected canonical is compared with the declared canonical.

Prepare evidence

In the app: Evidence import
You provide: Declared canonical and Google’s view
Allow for: Depends on evidence needed

Prepare evidence

Understand

You declare. Google chooses.

Google’s selected canonical is compared with the declared canonical.

According to Google

Google’s selected canonical is available in indexed data. The live test cannot predict that choice.

URL Inspection tool Source accessed on 2026-10-26

Check

Two canonicals. A choice to understand.

In TSEP Control

You import evidence for this control. The engine assesses it within the declared scope; missing items remain visible.

Your contribution

Define the scope and expectations before collection. Gather the items below and supply the requested reviews.

With your own tools

In Search Console inspection, read “User-declared canonical” and “Google-selected canonical”. Retain the last crawl date; a live test does not predict canonical selection.

Evidence to retain

Agreement or a qualified, addressed divergence.

What this result covers

Missing required rendering or absent Google canonical: inconclusive. Literal comparison without inferred URL equivalence, live state, causality, TS10 or indexing.

Act

Follow the signals. Explain the choice.

Identify conflicting signals and document the decision before changing the canonical.

Recheck

Google crawls again. Does its choice change?

After correction, gather new evidence with the same scope and expectations. Retain both dated observations to compare what changed.

Your reference points

To go further.

Statuses, sources and method.

Understand the statusesC · NC · NT · NA

The same legend in guides, analysis and demo. Each status depends on the control’s evidence and rules.

C · Verified: The criterion is met within the assessed scope. Keep dated evidence for the next comparison.
NC · To correct: Identify conflicting signals and document the decision before changing the canonical.
NT · Not established: Evidence or confirmations are insufficient to conclude. Supply what is missing; this status does not establish an SEO error.
NA · Not applicable: The control does not apply to the scope under its rules, with a retained justification. Missing evidence alone does not make it non-applicable.

Sources and references1 reference

URL Inspection toolsupport.google.com · new tab

Detailed method and rules3 rules

Control method and criteria

Method
Declare sourced preference, readers and rendered states; attribute API JSON and captures, compare literal strings and retain supplied reviews/decisions under google-canonical-comparison-v1.

Acceptance criteria
Qualified prior plan and all planned surfaces; retained values, separate dates and bound decisions. Documentary C, never canonical equality; documented differences allowed.

Non-applicability
Google explicitly out of scope; missing access is NT.

Detailed rules

TS12-A01 · Qualified prior comparison plan.

Protocol assessment mode : assisted, with supplied evidence and declarations. App availability is shown on the control card.

Scope
Selected set whose reported and captured canonicals must be compared.

Evidence
Prior plan/review, native API JSON, HTTP traces, supplied structured DOM states and reviews bound to exact evidence; canonical-comparison-v1 contract.

Method
Declare selection/objectives, prior knowledge, sourced preference, readers and rendered states; qualify the bound plan before every acquisition.

Acceptance criteria
Supported selection/objectives/preferences/surfaces/temporal_policy judgments, prior chronology and complete set. Supplied contradiction or acquisition before plan fails; gaps are inconclusive.

When the result remains inconclusive
Missing/unknown/invalid evidence, required state, value, policy, review or binding; retain limits and errors.

Non-applicability
No atomic exemption; lack of access or rendering is not NA.

Assumptions
Supplied data, dates, provenance and judgments; hashes do not authenticate people, navigation or history.

Limitations
Missing required rendering or absent Google canonical: inconclusive. Literal comparison without inferred URL equivalence, live state, causality, TS10 or indexing.

TS12-A02 · Complete attributed readings and comparisons.

Protocol assessment mode : assisted, with supplied evidence and declarations. App availability is shown on the control card.

Scope
Selected set whose reported and captured canonicals must be compared.

Evidence
Prior plan/review, native API JSON, HTTP traces, supplied structured DOM states and reviews bound to exact evidence; canonical-comparison-v1 contract.

Method
Read native evidence and both static HTML hypotheses; retain separate HTTP/HTML/DOM candidates, dates and literal comparisons.

Acceptance criteria
Qualified API, present Google canonical, readable HTTP/HTML and every planned DOM state; prior thresholds satisfied, duplicates retained. Different values allowed; source-only/absent Google remains inconclusive.

When the result remains inconclusive
Missing/unknown/invalid evidence, required state, value, policy, review or binding; retain limits and errors.

Non-applicability
No atomic exemption; lack of access or rendering is not NA.

Assumptions
Supplied data, dates, provenance and judgments; hashes do not authenticate people, navigation or history.

Limitations
Missing required rendering or absent Google canonical: inconclusive. Literal comparison without inferred URL equivalence, live state, causality, TS10 or indexing.

TS12-A03 · Qualification and decision bound to comparisons.

Protocol assessment mode : assisted, with supplied evidence and declarations. App availability is shown on the control card.

Scope
Selected set whose reported and captured canonicals must be compared.

Evidence
Prior plan/review, native API JSON, HTTP traces, supplied structured DOM states and reviews bound to exact evidence; canonical-comparison-v1 contract.

Method
Examine every surface value claim in a supplied evidence-bound review with interpretation, chronology, changes, objective, explanation and decision.

Acceptance criteria
Claims match known lists, supported qualification, reasoned relation and decision. A contradicted claim retains fail despite another unknown; missing review or unsupported established-cause assertion is inconclusive.

When the result remains inconclusive
Missing/unknown/invalid evidence, required state, value, policy, review or binding; retain limits and errors.

Non-applicability
No atomic exemption; lack of access or rendering is not NA.

Assumptions
Supplied data, dates, provenance and judgments; hashes do not authenticate people, navigation or history.

Limitations
Missing required rendering or absent Google canonical: inconclusive. Literal comparison without inferred URL equivalence, live state, causality, TS10 or indexing.

Rule version 0.2.0-rc.1 · Public protocol reference · Versioned source

Put it into practice

← Back to controls