Case Study Framework

Purpose: The standard structure for turning completed Summit projects into publishable case studies for the website, GBP, and agency ad creative. The framework exists so case studies stay honest: real work, anonymized people, and no invented outcomes. Jenna writes them; Pete supplies photos and job facts; Tara sanity-checks anything touching scope or money.

Non-negotiables

• Anonymized, always. No customer names, no initials, no house numbers, no identifiable exterior shots without written permission. Location is town-level only: "a Fairview homeowner," "a light-commercial property in Riverton."
• No fabricated results. We describe what we did and what the customer's situation was before and after. We do not invent satisfaction quotes, dollar savings, resale-value gains, energy-bill claims, or timelines we didn't hit.
• No testimonials. If a customer volunteers a public review, that lives on the review platform; we don't repackage it into case-study quotes.
• Ranges, not invoices. If we mention money at all, use the standard ranges from Pricing and Estimating Rules, never the actual job price.
• Permission on photos. CompanyCam photos are internal by default. Publishing any requires the homeowner's permission, logged by Rosa in GHL.

The six-part structure

Every case study uses these sections, in order. Length target: 300 to 600 words plus photos.

1. The situation. What the property was dealing with, in plain terms. Town-level location, property type, service line. No drama, no fear framing.
2. What we found. What the site visit or inspection actually showed. This is where Summit's diagnostic competence shows: specifics like decking condition, flashing failures, water paths.
3. The recommendation. What we proposed and why, including what we recommended against. "We recommended repair over replacement" stories build more trust than upsell stories.
4. The work. Scope, materials (e.g., architectural shingle vs. standing-seam metal), crew logistics, how long the on-site work took if we can state it accurately.
5. The finish. Walkthrough, cleanup, final photos. For remodels, note the final 10% payment released only at walkthrough sign-off, because it shows how we work.
6. What this means for you. One short paragraph translating the project into a takeaway for a similar homeowner or property manager, ending with the free-estimate offer.

Selecting projects

Good candidates, roughly in priority order:

• Projects where we recommended the cheaper option and the customer took it.
• Insurance restoration projects that show our documentation process (process only; never claim outcomes or amounts, per Messaging Rules).
• Emergency-to-permanent-repair arcs: tarped at 2 a.m., repaired properly the next week, $450 dispatch fee credited.
• Remodels with strong before/after photo sets.
• Anything Pete's crews flag as unusually clean work.

Poor candidates: jobs with unresolved punch lists, disputed invoices, or any complaint history. Check with Rosa before drafting.

Workflow

1. Pete flags a candidate job and confirms photo permission exists in GHL.
2. Jenna drafts using this framework; the agent can produce the first draft from job notes.
3. Tara reviews scope and money references; Jenna does the Messaging Rules pass.
4. Dave signs off on anything insurance-related.
5. Jenna publishes and hands the asset to the agency for ad use if it fits a pillar.

Related

• Content Pillars
• Messaging Rules
• Brand Voice Guide
• Pricing and Estimating Rules
• Insurance Restoration Customer
• Quality Control SOP