You have a spreadsheet of four hundred keywords sorted by volume, and every one of them is owned by a site with ten years of history. Volume is why the plan fails.
A term with 400 searches you can rank for beats a term with 40,000 you cannot. Look at who currently holds the first five results. If they are all sites older and larger than yours, that term is not a plan, it is a wish.
Five pages that answer five neighbouring questions and link to each other do far better than five pages on unrelated subjects. The linking between them is not a nice extra, it is most of the effect.
If every result for a term is a comparison table, your essay will not win, whatever it says. The results page is telling you what people accepted, and arguing with it is expensive.
After ten pages, another ten pages helps less than connecting the ten you have. Orphaned good pages are the most common waste on a young site.
This is teaching material and our own reading of standard practice, not advice for your specific site. Check anything important with your own specialist.
Run the free check, then tell us what it found. We reply with what to fix first and why. No call, no pitch.
If a word here is unfamiliar it is defined in the SEO glossary. Two public penalties and one problem we found on our own network are pulled apart in the case studies, and the longer pieces live in the library.