There is a defensible version of reputation work and a sloppy one, and the line between them is embarrassingly simple. In the first, the underlying facts stay where they are, and the argument is about which parts of them deserve to sit at the top of a search result. In the second, someone is being paid to move the facts. The first is a legitimate profession. The second is fraud in a nicer font.
Correction is the easiest case; if a public registry has the wrong middle name on a person and a downstream bureau is propagating the error, that is a paperwork fix. It is routine and effective; most people do not realize how many of their downstream issues started as a single typo in one primary source.
Contextualization is harder; a press article from 2014 that describes an event accurately but in language that has not aged well is not wrong. Trying to remove it is both unlikely to succeed and corrosive to trust. The alternative is to make sure newer, accurate, well-sourced material exists on the same topic, written by people whose voices search engines respect. Search results respond to recency, authority, and depth. Old articles sink when newer ones rise.
Displacement, the last case, is the most misunderstood. It is not the same as deletion. It is the steady production of more truthful, more current, better-sourced material until the older material drops below the threshold most people see. The original record still exists; the reader who really wants to find it can. What changes is the default surface a casual reader encounters.
Offers to delete accurate public records are either fraudulent or destined to fail. The well-supported work is slower and harder to market. It is also the only approach with durable results.