Why SaaS Software Needs Extra Layers of CYA
Hreflang implementation is notoriously fragile. It touches multiple systems, depends on various teams, and spans dozens of moving parts across markets. When it fails, the default assumption is simple: blame the vendor.
That’s why we had to engineer CYA (Cover Your Assets) protections directly into Hreflang Builder. Not because we wanted extra complexity, but because experience taught us it was the only way to survive — and to protect our clients from issues they often couldn’t see until traffic was already gone.
For those unaware, Hreflang Builder started as an internal solution for large multinationals to workaround their complex environments using hreflang XML sitemaps to minimize cross-market cannibalization. We had numerous agencies convince us to offer it as a stand-alone software solution so they could offer it to their clients. I had worked on this solution with a fantastic team and sold it in the summer of 2024.
Dependency Reality – Garbage In, Garbage Out
Hreflang Builder wasn’t a closed-loop tool. It depended on client-provided inputs like:
- CMS-generated XML sitemaps,
- SEO crawler exports, or
- Flat URL lists.
Our initial assumption was that these would be valid, reliable sources. They weren’t.
- CMS sitemaps would fail to generate, not update, or keep non-200 URLs.
- SEO tools would expire, hit subscription limits, or quietly change API formats.
- Manual URL lists were often appended but never refreshed.
- IT departments sometimes block crawlers or external validation entirely.
Each of these failures looked like our problem — markets disappeared, files broke, and suddenly hreflang was “not working.”
Validation Point #1 – Input Checks
As noted, we relied on a client-provided source for URLs to be imported into the system. Since there were many upstream points of failure, we had to add multiple tests when we saw a variation in the input source (s).
- Checks to confirm if a market was intentionally removed or if the source failed.
- Error logs for broken feeds or API failures.
- Alerts when source files stop updating.
But even when we notified clients of issues, responses ranged from “we didn’t read your email” to “everything looks fine on our side.” And inevitably, the breakdown was still pinned on us.
We would also get blamed when their SEO diagnostic tool vendor had a problem, changed their API, or canceled their service. Adding the source file checks allowed us to find these breaks early and notify the clients.
Validation Point #2 – Output Checks (Adding a Date Stamp)
Next, we added date stamps to the header of every hreflang XML file. That way, anyone could see when the file was last updated — clear evidence that our system was doing its job or not.
That safeguard saved us when one client threatened legal action. Their new agency claimed hreflang hadn’t been updated in seven months, and the client demanded a refund and wanted to sue for lost revenue. Our logs showed daily updates. The repository confirmed it. But the live XML was seven months old. Yes, the file was outdated, leading to cannibalization. But we did not have access to their servers to update the file.
The real cause? A junior developer had deleted the script that moved files from the repository to production. We escalated the issue, showed proof, and the senior manager agreed it wasn’t our fault. Without the date stamp, we might have lost the argument — and the client, or worse.
Validation Point #3 – Publishing Checks
Simply adding a date stamp wasn’t enough. We went further and built a process to ping the published XML files on client servers to verify live updates.
It was technically beyond scope, but it saved us from disaster. The first time we ran it, two other clients failed the test — their publishing processes had silently broken months earlier. Our alerts not only cleared us from blame but also helped clients fix problems they hadn’t spotted.
This turned out to be a powerful CYA and client service move.
Validation Point #4 – Alternate Mapping Checks
Alternate URL mapping was another minefield. Clients wanted hreflang to be a “set it and forget it” easy button, but we saw nearly 40 URL variation patterns over the years that making automatic mapping a challenge:
- Markets are quietly changing URL structures.
- SKU updates are breaking product-to-product mapping.
- Redirect chains where URLs should have been clean 200s.
- CMS sitemaps outputting garbage URLs with no error-checking.
Whenever mapping broke, clients blamed us: “Why didn’t you know we changed the structure?”
We built new CYA protections:
- Percentage-drop alerts to flag when mapped pages suddenly disappear.
- 200-status validation to weed out broken or non-indexable URLs.
These checks provided proof that the failure was upstream — not in our system. Still, the irony persisted: showing clients their own invalid URLs often sparked frustration that we hadn’t “magically known” their site had changed.
Validation Point #5 – Expectations and Contract Language
Technical checks weren’t enough. The other CYA we had to build was clear contracts and definitions.
Many subscribers assumed a Hreflang Builder license included free consulting or unlimited scale.
- One client purchased a 10,000 URL plan, expecting to utilize 10k URLs across 100 markets – that is a million URLs. He argued that it is 10k URLs and “their alternates are not URLs. Because we had it defined, he had to upgrade to the correct subscription.
- Another thought we would analyze their business and decide which URLs were “most valuable.”
- Others expected hreflang to make them rank in countries where they had no content.
To prevent scope abuse, we rewrote agreements with explicit definitions:
- What a “URL” meant.
- What a “project” meant.
- There is a clear line between software subscription and consulting services.
This contractual CYA was critical. Without it, even when the software worked perfectly, we risked endless unpaid support and refund fights.
The Hidden Costs of Not Having These CYA Layers
Every one of these layers was born from real-world pain:
- Reputation damage from being accused of failures we didn’t cause.
- Financial exposure from refund demands and threatened lawsuits.
- Client trust erosion when miscommunication turned into disputes.
- Internal stress from being forced into detective work on problems outside our scope.
By building CYA into the product, we protected ourselves — but we also helped clients catch and fix issues faster.
Lessons Learned
- Assume dependencies will fail. Every source, system, or server in the chain will eventually break.
- Documentation is necessary but not sufficient. Logs matter, but live publishing checks matter more.
- Beyond-scope protections are worth it. Automating checks saved relationships and revenue.
- Contracts are CYA too. Without clear expectations, every limit becomes a fight.
- CYA protects both sides. Clients trusted us more once they saw we were catching problems in their systems.
Map the Failure Chain, Build CYA at Every Link
Hreflang Builder taught us a hard truth: in the client’s eyes, if something breaks, it’s always your fault. The only defense is to design CYA at every point of potential failure — inputs, outputs, publishing, mapping, and even expectations.
CYA isn’t about covering yourself after the fact. It’s about building protective guardrails into your systems, contracts, and culture so that when things inevitably fail, you can pinpoint the root cause and protect both your credibility and your client’s results.
“The safeguards we built into Hreflang Builder didn’t appear out of nowhere — they came straight from the CYA principles I outlined in Epiphany 28: Cover Your Assets – Why Agencies and SaaS Teams Need CYA Protocols If you want the playbook before the war stories, start there.”
Explore More Epiphanies
This article is part of my ongoing series, My Digital Marketing Epiphanies – realizations, hard-earned lessons, and mental models shaped by decades in the field.
If you want more insights, visit the full archive here: My Digital Marketing Epiphanies
