TS23International

Does every hreflang variant reference the others?

hreflang annotations are reciprocal and include the current page.

Prepare evidence

In the app: Evidence import
You provide: Annotations from each variant
Allow for: Depends on evidence needed

Prepare evidence

Understand

One version cites another. And back again.

hreflang annotations are reciprocal and include the current page.

According to Google

When a page references a variant, that variant should link back. Missing reciprocity can lead Google to ignore the annotations.

Localized versions of your pages Source accessed on 2026-10-26

Check

From A to B. And from B to A?

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

List the variants of the same content. For each URL, check references to itself and the others, then record missing return links.

Evidence to retain

Prior plan/expected mappings, selected channels, original HTTP requests/responses and hashes, dates, element/head-closure positions, static hypotheses, primary/secondary sets, exclusions and unknowns.

What this result covers

Supplied cluster and primary mode declarations: no capture authenticity, site completeness, TS22 language validity, indexability/canonical, TS24 x-default suitability, translation, executed JavaScript or Google processing. Relevant supplied sitemap/DOM channels remain outside this profile.

Act

Restore return links. Include self-references.

Restore reciprocal links and self-references in the selected channel.

Recheck

One variant fixed. The whole group reread.

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: Restore reciprocal links and self-references in the selected channel.
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

Localized versions of your pagesdevelopers.google.com · new tab

Detailed method and rules1 rule

Control method and criteria

Method
Read native HTML or HTTP Link annotations from originals, preserve two HTML hypotheses and secondary channels, compare every code–URL pair to the prior cluster without unioning channels.

Acceptance criteria
Each cluster page includes the entire expected set in its primary channel, including self-reference; no qualified target contradiction. Several codes may share a URL and cross-domain clusters are allowed.

Non-applicability
No hreflang cluster in scope.

Detailed rules

TS23-A01 · Native reciprocal and self references within the prior cluster.

Protocol assessment mode : automatic. App availability is shown on the control card.

Scope
Cluster and primary channels declared before capture; bounded hreflang-reciprocity-v1 profile.

Evidence
Prior plan/expected mappings, selected channels, original HTTP requests/responses and hashes, dates, element/head-closure positions, static hypotheses, primary/secondary sets, exclusions and unknowns.

Method
Read native HTML or HTTP Link annotations from originals, preserve two HTML hypotheses and secondary channels, compare every code–URL pair to the prior cluster without unioning channels.

Acceptance criteria
Pass if all pages are qualified and include the expected set in their primary channel. Fail for established qualified absence, invalid primary-HTML placement or target conflict. Otherwise inconclusive; independent contradictions survive unknowns.

When the result remains inconclusive
Missing/ambiguous plan or original, unqualified chronology/channel, source recovery outside admitted boundary, language/URL outside closed admission, unplanned outside annotation or missing required runtime.

Non-applicability
No automatic NA; an empty plan does not establish non-applicability.

Assumptions
Prior plan, at most24-hour window, HTTP200 requested=final without redirects, exact absolute HTTP(S) URLs. Two static HTML hypotheses, no script execution.

Limitations
Supplied cluster and primary mode declarations: no capture authenticity, site completeness, TS22 language validity, indexability/canonical, TS24 x-default suitability, translation, executed JavaScript or Google processing. Relevant supplied sitemap/DOM channels remain outside this profile.

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

Put it into practice

← Back to controls