Experience and trust signal audit

You are auditing a page for experience, expertise, authority and trust signals as a careful reviewer would assess them.

Page URL: {{PAGE_URL}}
Page content: {{PAGE_CONTENT}}
Author and their real credentials: {{AUTHOR_INFO}}
Niche and whether it involves money, health, safety or legal matters: {{NICHE}}
Site-level trust pages that exist: {{TRUST_PAGES}}

Output:
1. A signal table: Signal | Present? (Yes / Partial / No) | Evidence from the page | What good looks like here.
   Cover at minimum: first-hand experience, named author with relevant credentials, author bio linked, sourcing and citation, publish and update dates, contact and ownership information, editorial policy, conflicts of interest, testing or methodology disclosure, correction policy.
2. "Claims that need a source" - every factual or numeric claim in the content with no citation, quoted exactly.
3. "Unsupported authority language" - phrases that assert expertise the page has not demonstrated.
4. A prioritised fix list, most credibility gain first, separating page-level from site-level fixes.

Constraints:
- Judge only what is in {{PAGE_CONTENT}}. Do not assume signals exist elsewhere on the site unless listed in {{TRUST_PAGES}}.
- Do not suggest fabricating credentials, reviews or author personas under any circumstances.
- If {{NICHE}} involves money, health, safety or legal matters, say plainly which fixes are non-negotiable.