A sourced local-lead example: what the evidence proves

Real inputs, with the selection disclosed

On 19 October 2026, the existing capture searched roofing contractors in Austin, Texas, and returned 200 map records. Website inspection continued through 132 candidate websites until ten records with the selected public owner/contact evidence were assembled. These ten already appeared on the homepage; this guide adds an inspectable walkthrough and workbench handoff. It is not a new acquisition test, customer testimonial or random sample.

Do not interpret ten displayed owners/emails as 100% coverage. Selection favored public owner/founder evidence, a public email and a listing phone, with an additional sourced phone preferred. Overall coverage and city/category generalization cannot be estimated from this display.

A second view that keeps missing results in the denominator

The first-30-record CSV takes the first 30 records in the original saved Maps order and joins them retrospectively to the existing website capture. It was not filtered for successful contacts. All thirty records remain in the file, including missing and capture-error cases. This reuse makes no new paid request.

Evidence retained in this historical snapshot	Count out of all 30 records
Listed website	29
Recorded matched, readable website	8
Public email on a matched site	4
Supported public owner/founder role	4
Map-listing phone	29
Public website phone on a matched site	8
Complete results not retained after owner-extraction HTTP 402	10

This is not a coverage estimate. 10 rows were interrupted by the historical owner-extraction service returning HTTP 402 before complete results were retained. Their missing contact fields are unknown, not a finding that no contact exists; the CSV marks them as owner_extraction_unavailable and website status not_recorded. Those exceptions also prevent calculating a reliable website-readability or email hit rate from this snapshot.

These counts show why a listing phone, retained public email, supported role and capture error must be distinguished. Public email may be a general mailbox. This is one historical roofing search in one geography, not random market sampling, a current-parser retest, domain-only coverage or a cross-vendor benchmark. You can upload the CSV into the workbench and inspect the blanks, exception notes and source links yourself.

Follow one record back to its sources

The capture lists Lapeyre Roofing, with “Hunter Lapeyre” and the public role “Owner & Lead Roofing Consultant.” The recorded source page contains the website evidence; the map listing identifies the location. The selected public mailbox is office@lapeyreroofing.com. A public company mailbox is not automatically this person's personal email, and its presence does not verify delivery.

Another row records Specialty Roofing with a founder/CEO role from its about page. Keep the role quote, website/domain association and source date together when reviewing that result; similar company names alone are insufficient to merge business records.

Load these ten rows in the CSV workbench. Check a source, set a review-count range, export, then use that exported list as a previous list to see identity comparison. The workbench runs locally in your browser and does not create another paid search.

A separate production task check

Existing production MCP/API acceptance on the same date completed one three-record plumber search, charged three credits and downloaded a full CSV with three rows. That establishes that this particular task-and-export path worked. It does not demonstrate contact coverage, all countries, n8n activation, a native ChatGPT UI connection, or CRM import success.

Reproduce a useful buying trial

Choose 30–50 unselected businesses matching your intended category/country. Define whether success means any business phone, any public email, an explicitly supported owner, or a working booking journey. Record failures, blanks, staff review time and the bill separately. Compare tools on the same input scope. The resulting evidence is more useful than a success-only sample for choosing a plan.