Why your own site is not enough
Everything on your site is self-reported, and a model composing a recommendation treats it that way. It is necessary - without it there is nothing to corroborate - but on its own it supports a description rather than a recommendation. The lift comes from the same specifics appearing somewhere you do not control.
What carries weight
Independent editorial coverage that contains specifics rather than a rewritten press release. Industry association and registry listings, because they are verifiable. Question-and-answer communities where a real answer with detail survives moderation. Customer-side accounts: a client case study published on the client's own site is worth several on yours.
What is largely ignored
Syndicated copies of the same release across dozens of low-quality outlets. Directory entries that contain nothing but a name and a link. Review scores on platforms where the scores are known to be purchasable. Volume of this kind does not accumulate into credibility; it is pattern-matched and discounted as a group.
The line
Placing accurate material in places where buyers already look is distribution. Manufacturing the appearance of independent consensus - coordinated posts written as if by unrelated users, fabricated reviews, invented case studies - is not a grey area. It is also fragile: a single contradiction between the fabricated account and a verifiable fact undoes the whole set.
Sequence matters
Corroboration of claims your own site does not make is wasted. Publish the specifics first, then place material that references them. A model that follows a citation back to a page that says something different has found an inconsistency, not a confirmation.