The majority of the flags on this article do not point to fixable sentences. They point to the article itself.
Flags 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 all reach the same conclusion: this piece sits outside OMC's confirmed services (formation, banking, visas, tax/VAT, accounting, PRO, mortgage), it links to a /services/web-development page that is not a verified OMC asset, and every website-cost figure in it is unsupported by the FACTS block.
There is no compliant version of this body to produce. Removing the flagged web-development claim, the topic, the pricing sentence, the chart, the hosting-compliance claim and the track-record vouch leaves nothing but a title and a few isolated stylistic fixes attached to content that cannot be published under the OMC name.
Per the guidance on the flags, my recommendation is:
Do not publish this article. It should be withdrawn or re-scoped to a confirmed OMC priority service page (for example bank account opening or freezone formation), with owner sign-off, before any awareness piece ships.
For the record, so nothing is lost if the topic is ever legitimately commissioned against a verified service, the three purely editorial corrections that were flagged are:
- Flag 11 / 16: the tenure should read "19+ years operating since 2007" (or "in business since 2007" with no hardcoded number), not "14+".
- Flag 12: "what it costed to build" should read "what it cost to build".
- Flag 17: the analogy should be trimmed to "The purchase price is one thing; servicing and renewals are what you pay every year after."
I have not rewritten the body, because doing so would require retaining or restating website-pricing claims and a web-development service that the FACTS block does not support, and I do not add or ground claims that have no source.
Related reading:
