AI Cite Who1. What did the audit check?
We checked ten English buyer questions, the recommendations in the saved answers, the cited sources, public website evidence and an optional brand-name search. Three confirmed competitors formed the comparison set.
The questions covered competitor recommendations, source comparisons, small-team budgets and actionable website improvements. The audit asks whether buyers encounter the product in relevant answers and whether its offering is supported by clear public evidence.
2. What can a customer learn?
The audited brand was found in the name search but recommended in none of the ten buyer answers. Competitors A and B each appeared as recommendations in four answers; Competitor C appeared in none. Multiple products may share one answer, so these counts are not market shares.
This distinguishes brand discovery from buyer recommendations. A customer can see which questions expose a gap, which competitors appear and which evidence needs closer review, rather than treating every mention as a recommendation or assuming the website cannot be found.
| Brand | Answers recommending it |
|---|---|
| Audited brand | 0 / 10 |
| Competitor A | 4 / 10 |
| Competitor B | 4 / 10 |
| Competitor C | 0 / 10 |
3. What useful evidence does the report provide?
The report separates final-answer citations from retrieved candidates. It also distinguishes owned pages, competitor pages and independent sources, so a search lead does not become a confirmed citation or publication permission.
Your private report keeps the question-level answers, source references and supporting evidence needed to assess each task. This public case summarizes their roles without disclosing the source identities.
The following source roles come from the saved audit: the first question cited two competitor-owned pages; an editorial page was only a retrieved candidate for that question, and a community discussion was only a candidate for the source-comparison question. Aliases replace identities, and no source address is published.
- Question-level outcomes: see where your brand is recommended, where a competitor is recommended and where no selected brand is recommended.
- Website evidence: assess whether product scope, suitable customers, pricing and proof are clear on the pages checked.
- Source differences: identify evidence on competitor-owned pages and relevant independent opportunities that still require investigation.
| Anonymized source | Observed role | How it informs a task |
|---|---|---|
| Source A · Competitor A’s page | Final-answer citation | Check the product facts buyers can inspect; prepare proof on your own site. |
| Source B · Competitor B’s page | Final-answer citation | Create a factual workflow comparison; competitor-owned material is not independent endorsement. |
| Source C · editorial page | Retrieved candidate only | Verify topic fit and editorial rules before considering a factual inquiry. |
| Source D · community discussion | Retrieved candidate only | Verify the question, thread status and rules before deciding whether a useful comment is appropriate. |
4. What could be improved?
The audit identified these practical content tasks. Each has an evidence requirement and a completion check, so the customer can decide what to work on first. The findings do not establish a model’s internal reasons for choosing a product.
| Task | What to prepare | What the reader should understand |
|---|---|---|
| Explain the product workflow | Show the audit steps, supported scope and report deliverables. | What the tool checks and which decisions its report supports. |
| Add a factual comparison | Compare buyer tasks, capabilities and limits using current evidence. | Which workflow fits their needs and what remains unknown. |
| Show an anonymized report case | Connect observed outcomes and source roles to specific tasks. | What useful work they can take away from an audit. |
| Make costs easier to evaluate | Calculate an initial audit, repeat checks and optional steps with exclusions. | What a repeatable question set costs within a plan. |
| Investigate relevant external opportunities | Check community participation rules or editorial submission requirements before adapting a draft. | Whether to comment, create a post, submit information or skip the opportunity. |
5. How can a customer use the report?
Start with the questions that matter to your customers, review the evidence behind each finding and select the tasks that fit your product and resources. Use the report’s completion checks to brief a writer, developer or AI coding tool.
For an external task, give the Markdown report to a browsing-capable AI tool to check current rules and decide the appropriate participation method before revising the draft. For a later comparison, reuse the selected questions and comparison set so the saved answers remain interpretable.