We get brands
cited in the answer.
Not on page two.

Buyer search has splintered. Your buyers are in ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews before they ever see a blue link. We work with B2B teams on getting cited where decisions actually start.

Free 30-min · No pitch · Book a call · Free 30-min · No pitch · Let's talk →

What I do.

AI Search & GEO Audits
A full read of where (and how) your brand surfaces across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude, and Gemini. Includes the entity, citation, and content gaps a model is actually looking for.
Prompt mappingCitation shareEntity gaps
Traditional SEO Audits
Technical, on-page, and content audits scoped for B2B SaaS: site architecture, internal linking, template health, indexation, and a roadmap your team can actually ship.
TechnicalOn-pageArchitecture
Content Strategy for LLM Visibility
A content system designed for both ranking and citation: topic clusters mapped to buyer prompts, entity briefs, source-worthiness signals, and a measurement layer that tracks LLM mentions, not just clicks.
Topic clustersEntity briefsMeasurement
Full-Service SEO Programme
End-to-end SEO delivery as an ongoing engagement: keyword strategy, content oversight, technical health, link building, and monthly reporting. Everything a serious organic channel needs, without a full-time hire.
OngoingExecutionReporting
Technical SEO
Hands-on technical SEO work: crawl health, rendering, Core Web Vitals, structured data, and the infrastructure issues that quietly suppress organic performance. Scoped as a project or ongoing retainer.
TechnicalCWVMigrations
Link Building & Digital PR
Off-site authority work that feeds both organic rankings and LLM citation signals. Earned coverage, relevant links, and brand mentions from the sources that models and search engines actually trust.
LinksDigital PRCitations

Receipts from the work.

A few recent engagements. Happy to walk through specifics on a call: the brand, the baseline, what we shipped, and what we'd do differently.

Enterprise Tax Software UK
73 AI Overview placements from zero

No organic presence on non-branded terms as Google rolled out AI answers. We had to own the category before Avalara, Thomson Reuters, or Sovos did.

+814% position-1 rankings · 7 → 64
27.1% search visibility · category leader
+23% backlinks grown · rivals fell 29–69%
The only competitor in the category growing both keywords and backlinks.
B2B Freight & Logistics UK & Germany
#2 Freight carrier cited in AI answers

A branded-heavy keyword portfolio and no Wikipedia presence left the brand absent from AI-generated answers entirely. The opportunity was AI surfaces, not just traditional SERP.

+165% organic traffic
25%+ AI visibility · from ~2%
72% non-branded share · from 27%
Wikipedia page authored from primary sources and was cited in ChatGPT within days of approval.

Where does your brand show up in AI search?

Your buyers are asking ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude before they Google. Most B2B brands don't know their own answer.

See a live example Pick a brand below to preview their AI visibility score.

Four steps.
One system.

Map the answer-space
Inventory the buyer prompts your audience actually types into LLMs and traditional search. Score where you appear, who beats you, and on what dimensions.
Diagnose the gap
Technical health, entity coverage, citation-worthiness, and content depth. Separated into things models can see and things they can't.
Ship the fix
A prioritised roadmap with briefs, schema, IA, and PR plays, scoped to what your team can actually execute.
Measure visibility, not vanity
A dashboard that tracks LLM citations, prompt-level share-of-voice, and assisted pipeline alongside the rankings you already report.
Nike · A deep dive
Illustrative purposes only.

Entity mapping

Step one of every engagement: map where the brand sits in LLM answer-space versus where buyers actually search. We ran 47 buyer prompts across four AI platforms and logged which brand each cited. The matrix below is the typical output: rows are intent clusters, columns are platforms, and the pattern is almost always the same split.

Owning the brand layer doesn't protect revenue. Buying decisions start at the problem layer, and that's usually where the gaps are. The three categories this audit always surfaces are shown below, with this engagement's data as the illustration.

Three clusters this audit always finds

  • Owned cluster: brand and branded-product queries, usually strong
  • Contested cluster: category and use-case queries, competitors fighting for position
  • Absent cluster: problem-aware queries, brand not appearing on any platform
8owned
19competitor-held
7partial / absent
Buyer prompt · 47 tested
AIO
Gemini
ChatGPT
Pplx
Problem-aware
"best shoe for plantar fasciitis"
Brooks
ASICS
·
Hoka
"most cushioned shoe for long runs"
Hoka
Hoka
ASICS
Brooks
"running shoes for overpronation"
ASICS
·
Brooks
Saucony
Use-case
"marathon shoes under £200"
~
ASICS
~
Adidas
"best shoe for breaking 3 hours"
~
~
ASICS
~
Technology
"what is carbon plate technology"
Adidas
ASICS
Adidas
ASICS
"best energy return foam running"
Adidas
~
ASICS
Adidas
Brand & athlete
"what shoe did Kipchoge wear"
"Nike Vaporfly technology"
~
Brand cited Competitor cited Partial Absent
Visualization brief · Card 01 · Entity mapping

An interactive 3D knowledge graph rendered in WebGL (Three.js or a canvas-based particle system). The brand node sits at the centre, pulsing with a slow ambient glow. Entity nodes orbit in concentric rings — P1 gaps orbit closest, burning a deep amber-red with a slight distortion shimmer (like heat haze) to signal urgency. P2 partials float in a mid ring, occasionally flickering as if data is uncertain. Owned entities sit in the outer ring, glowing steady green with a soft halo.

Connecting spokes are animated light-trails — green for owned, blue for third-party positive, red for third-party negative — the trails flow toward the brand node when ownership is strong, and away from it (reversed direction) when the citation goes to a competitor. The direction of light-flow tells the story instantly without any legend.

On hover, a node expands into a glassmorphism tooltip showing the split arc (owned / 3P pos / 3P neg) as a smooth animated donut, surfacing the specific LLM platforms with pill badges that each pulse at different rates to suggest live polling.

Passively: the whole graph slowly rotates on the Y axis, with a parallax tilt that follows the cursor. Gap nodes (absent ones) have a subtle void animation — a black hole-style gravitational lensing effect — suggesting something is missing from the universe. The gap callout banner ("4 P1 GAPS · CITED ELSEWHERE") appears as a red scan-line that sweeps across the visualisation every 8 seconds.

Problem-aware 73 queries
68 absent 2 cited
Use-case 61 queries
52 absent 6 cited
Category 48 queries
22 absent 14 cited
Brand/athlete 28 queries
5 absent 21 cited

Buyer journey & prompt intent mapping

Most buyers in any considered-purchase category never search for a brand. They search for a problem, a use case, or a comparison. "Best for plantar fasciitis." "Most cushioned for long runs." "Marathon shoes under £200." These non-branded prompts are where buying decisions start, and they're the queries a brand is typically absent from in LLM answers.

210 non-branded prompts across four intent clusters, mapped against LLM responses. Each prompt is classified by buyer stage, search volume proxy, and current citation status. The pattern holds across every category we've audited: brands own the branded narrative, then lose the moment a buyer describes a need rather than a name.

This map determines what content gets built first. Every hub page, FAQ, and comparison piece is targeted at a specific cluster of unmet non-branded prompts.

Visualization brief · Card 02 · Buyer journey & prompt intent mapping

A live prompt-stream waterfall rendered as a full-panel canvas. On the left, a continuous scroll of buyer queries drifts downward like a slow-motion terminal feed — each query typed out character by character with a blinking cursor, then fading out. On the right, a vertical heat map funnel shows three lanes: "Nike cited 1st", "Cited 2nd–3rd", "Absent". As each query animates in on the left, a glowing particle shoots horizontally and lands in the appropriate funnel lane, joining a growing cluster of particles.

The funnel lanes have different textures: the top lane glows with confident green phosphor. The middle lane is amber, flickering slightly. The absent lane is dark — particles land there and disappear, sucked into a void with a brief ripple. The 147-of-210 stat is shown as a real-time counter that increments as each particle drops into the absent zone.

The prompt chips are written in realistic buyer language with a monospaced typewriter font. Occasionally the animation pauses and zooms in on a specific prompt — "Best for plantar fasciitis" — highlighting it in yellow as if a researcher has just annotated it, before zooming back out. Secondary passive animation: the absent-zone lane slowly expands over time until it fills 70% of the vertical space, making the scale of the gap viscerally clear.

Technical SEO audit

Crawl of all category and product URLs combined with PageSpeed Insights data, manual structured data review, and log file analysis. Sites at catalogue scale ship technical debt fast. We're looking for anything that limits crawl budget, suppresses indexation, or signals low quality to LLMs that index the web.

At high page volume, a single template issue affects tens of thousands of product pages simultaneously. Every fix is scoped by template type, not individual page, and estimated against actual engineering sprint capacity. The output isn't a score. It's a prioritised fix list.

The most impactful finding in this audit is almost always the same: missing structured data on product pages is the largest single LLM signal gap. Schema is what makes content machine-readable. Without it, LLMs can't reliably cite you even if the content is good.

auditing nike.com
> _
Core Web Vitals
Crawl budget
Indexing rate
Structured data
Discoverability
Internal links
Visualization brief · Card 03 · Technical SEO audit

A live site-health terminal that mimics a real crawl in progress. The panel opens with a blinking command line: scanning nike.com/running... 14,832 URLs. A progress bar floods across the top (passive loop animation). Below, issues appear one by one as if discovered in real time — each row types itself in with a brief highlight pulse on entry.

The bars are replaced with circular gauge rings arranged in a 2×2 grid, one per section (CWV, Crawl, Index, Schema). Each gauge ring animates from 0 to its actual value on scroll-into-view, with the ring colour shifting from green through amber to red as it fills past thresholds. A number in the centre counts up simultaneously.

Critical fails pulse with a slow crimson breathing animation. Hovering reveals a tooltip showing a real URL fragment (e.g., nike.com/gb/running/shoes/vaporfly) with the specific issue annotated inline — like a real SEO tool output. Passively: a faint scan-line sweeps top-to-bottom across the entire dark panel every 6 seconds, like a radar sweep. The overall effect reads as live diagnostic data from a real crawl, not a static summary table.

LLM citation baseline

Before we change anything, we log exactly where the brand sits across every platform, at each stage of the buyer journey. 140 prompts across four intent clusters, run in parallel across ChatGPT, Google AIO, and Perplexity. Every response logged, citations extracted, and share-of-voice calculated against named competitors. The three platform windows below show the baseline state. The chart underneath shows what it means commercially.

ChatGPT
ZoomX foam science
Carbon plate tech
Sub-2hr marathon
GPT-4o
What foam technology gives the best energy return in marathon shoes?
Google Search
All Images Shopping Videos
AI Overview
podiatrytoday.com runnersworld.com healthline.com
Perplexity
Nike Vaporfly vs ASICS Metaspeed Sky+ for marathon
1 letsrun.com 2 reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning 3 fellrnr.com 4 podiumrunner.com
Answer
The closer the buyer is to knowing your brand, the better you look. by buyer journey stage · 140 prompts
Brand vs. competitor average citation rate. Reading left to right tracks a buyer from describing a need to knowing the brand name.
Competitor avg Brand
Problem-aware "Best for plantar fasciitis" · "Shoes for overpronation"
Competitors 38%
Brand: 4%
−34 pts
3 in 4 problem-aware prompts go to a competitor
Use-case "Marathon shoes under £200" · "Best for breaking 3 hrs"
Competitors 31%
Brand: 11%
−20 pts
Competitors cited 3× more on use-case queries
Category "Best carbon plate shoe" · "Nike vs ASICS for marathon"
Competitors 29%
Brand: 22%
−7 pts
Competitive but contested. Fixable.
Brand & athlete "ZoomX foam technology" · "What shoe did Kipchoge wear?"
Competitors 18%
Brand: 61%
+43 pts
Dominant where the buyer already knows the brand
← Buyer is describing a need Buyer already knows Nike →
Visualization brief · Card 04 · LLM citation baseline

A multi-window LLM response theatre. Three side-by-side chat windows — styled to look exactly like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AIO respectively (distinct UI chrome, fonts, colours). The same prompt appears at the top of all three: "Best running shoe for breaking 3 hours in a marathon?"

Each window plays its answer back as a typewriter animation. Competitor brand mentions appear in an aggressive red highlight that expands slightly (like a stamp); Nike's mention appears much later in a muted grey. A counter at the top of each window tallies "Competitor mentions: 4" vs "Nike mentions: 1" live as the text types in.

Below the three windows, the SOV chart is replaced by a real-time horse race animation — brands as coloured bars racing horizontally, ASICS sprinting ahead, Nike lagging badly. The bars have momentum physics (they overshoot slightly then settle). The final state shows Nike's bar in brand-accurate terracotta, stopping far short of the others.

A floating callout badge pulses top-right: "Nike cited 4th — in a category its own technology created." This rotates through platforms every 4 seconds with a card-flip animation.

Schema & structured data

Structured data is what makes content machine-readable to LLMs, not just eligible for rich snippets. The rich snippets benefit is real but secondary. At catalogue scale, this is a template problem, not a page problem: we write JSON-LD specs per template type and the fix rolls out across thousands of pages in a single sprint.

The diff shows 5 fields becoming 48. The author entity addition (a named biomechanist with an ORCID ID) is the most differentiated change, and connects directly to the expert author card below.

BEFORE
{ } vaporfly-3.json 5 fields · incomplete
1
2
3
4
5
6
7{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type":    "Product",
  "name":    "Nike Vaporfly 3",
  "brand":   { ... },
  "offers":  { ... }
}
MISSING aggregateRating
MISSING author
MISSING material
MISSING additionalProperty
AFTER
{ } vaporfly-3.json 48 fields · production
Rich results unlocked
Product snippet
Ineligible
Eligible
Review snippet
Ineligible
Eligible
Article · byline
Ineligible
Eligible
3 / 3 ✓
Visualization brief · Card 05 · Schema & structured data

A before/after code diff theatre. The left half shows the current sparse Product schema — dimmed colours, visually cold. The right half shows the enriched version with a live diff animation: new lines type themselves in line by line, each new property fading in with a green left-border glow (like a git diff add).

The missing properties (aggregateRating, author, material) start as red-outlined ghost blocks — empty placeholders with dashed borders and "MISSING" stamped across them. When the "after" animation plays, those ghost blocks fill in with real data: text types in, the red outline morphs to green, and a small particle burst signals the fix is live.

A third column on the far right shows a live LLM signal meter — a vertical gauge showing how machine-readable the schema is to a language model. As each missing property fills in, the gauge notches upward with a satisfying click-advance animation, with labels like "Author entity: unresolved → resolved" appearing alongside.

Passively: a faint binary/hex rain falls through the dark panel background (very subtle, Matrix-inspired but tasteful), suggesting the machine-readability dimension — the idea that LLMs are reading code, not prose.

Technology content hubs

Hub-and-spoke architecture built around the entities LLMs cite least. Hub pages give LLMs a single authoritative source to cite. Spoke pages intercept long-tail prompts at each decision stage and link equity flows back to the hub. Each hub is written by a named subject-matter expert with machine-readable author schema. The spokes carry consistent entity attribution throughout. This architecture is what generates the citation numbers shown in the next card.

Hub 01 · Content authority
ZoomX Foam
SL Dr. Sarah Lin · NSRL
LLM-citable · P1
/what-is-zoomx-pebax
Foam chemistry · answers 14 prompts
/87-pct-energy-return-data
NSRL methodology + data
/zoomx-vs-eva-vs-peba
Head-to-head comparison
/zoomx-degradation-500mi
Durability over mileage
/zoomx-manufacturing-scale
Production & supply context
interlinked
Hub 02 · Content authority
Carbon Plate
JK Dr. James Kiptoo · NSRL
LLM-citable · P1
/carbon-plate-geometry
How propulsion works
/is-carbon-plate-legal
WA rules & eligibility
/training-vs-racing-plate
When to wear which
/breaking2-shoe-tech
Kipchoge & the record attempt
/vaporfly-vs-alphafly
Plate geometry compared
Visualization brief · Card 06 · Technology content hubs

An animated content architecture map that builds itself in real time as the user scrolls into view. The hub nodes appear first — two glowing hexagonal cards that pulse into existence from a single origin point. Then the spokes extend outward like branches growing from a tree: each spoke link animates as a line that draws itself from hub to spoke node, with the spoke title fading in at the end.

Spokes are styled as actual URL paths (nike.com/technology/zoomx/what-is-zoomx) in monospace font, with a faint favicon icon beside each. The spoke nodes are small rectangular cards that hover and cast shadows.

Connection lines are animated with flowing light dots — like data packets — travelling from spoke to hub, representing internal link equity flowing inward. The dots are coloured to show entity signal strength (green = strong entity match, amber = partial). The inter-hub bridge shows a bidirectional pulsing beam with the label "Internal link bridge", alternating direction to show link equity flowing both ways.

Passively: the whole architecture breathes — nodes gently scale up and down, glow halos pulse — suggesting a living information architecture. On hover of any spoke, the connected entity tags float up as bubble chips around that node.

GEO content layer

Not blog posts. Not product copy. Structured, direct-answer content with clear entity attribution, specific data, and machine-readable FAQ schema on every page. Built to match the exact phrasing LLMs use when answering buying, research, and comparison queries across sixteen FAQ pages and five definition pages.

The difference between content that gets cited and content that doesn't is specificity. LLMs don't cite vague descriptions. They cite pages that give them a complete, attributable answer with a verifiable claim they can repeat confidently.

Example content format. Illustrative of the type commissioned, not proprietary assets.

847
citations this week
up from near-zero at start
4/4
platforms citing
21
pages published
nike.com/technology/zoomx FAQPage schema
What is ZoomX foam and how does it work?
ZoomX is a Pebax-based midsole foam that returns 87% of impact energy per foot strike — the highest of any midsole foam tested by the Nike Sport Research Lab.
SL Dr. Sarah Lin · NSRL structured · attributable · machine-readable
cited by
ChatGPT "…ZoomX delivers 87% energy return, highest in category per NSRL."
Perplexity Independent testing confirms ZoomX foam at 87% energy return. [nike.com]
Gemini 87% energy return validated in a 36-runner study. Source: nike.com/technology/zoomx
Google AI Overviews ZoomX Pebax foam returns 87% of impact energy per stride, per Nike NSRL methodology.
0 citations this week · up from near-zero at engagement start
Visualization brief · Card 07 · GEO content layer

A dual-panel citation proof system. The left panel shows the structured FAQ page, but animated: the Q appears first, then the answer types in as if an LLM is generating it. Halfway through, a yellow annotation draws a box around the specific claim ("87% energy return") and a glowing arrow extends from that claim rightward into the second panel.

The right panel is a live LLM citation feed — showing four LLM platform windows (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AIO) simultaneously pulling from the same source. Each window shows a condensed AI response where the exact phrase from the left appears highlighted, attributed to nike.com/technology/zoomx. A counter increments: "Cited 847 times this week".

The entity chips below each FAQ item are interactive: hovering causes a knowledge graph fragment to bloom from it — a mini network of related entities the LLM uses to contextualise this content. This makes "entity attribution" visceral rather than abstract.

Passively: a faint green pulse emanates from the cited text on the left every few seconds, as if a signal is being broadcast — reinforcing that well-structured content actively transmits information to LLMs rather than waiting to be found.

Digital PR & offsite authority

The chain that turns a proprietary data finding into an LLM citation runs: original data → earned editorial coverage → indexed across the web → cited by LLMs as authoritative third-party validation. Most SEO teams understand the first and last steps and skip the middle. This is the middle.

Story angles are built around the client's proprietary data assets. Every pitch leads with the finding, not the brand. Journalists get the dataset first. The result is independently published, editorially attributed coverage: the highest-trust signal for both search engines and LLMs. Publication tier is matched to what the client's research can credibly support.

EARNED Editorial coverage with no commercial relationship. It's the highest-trust signal for both search engines and LLMs, and LLMs weight independent sources differently to brand-owned content. Publication tier is matched to what the client's research can credibly support.
BACKLINK Dofollow links from DR 60+ publications pass authority to hub pages, compounding organic ranking signals and increasing the likelihood of those pages appearing in LLM training data.
CITATION Named claims attributed to a specific source. That's the exact pattern LLMs use when sourcing factual assertions at query time. Without named attribution, the signal dissipates.
Citation signal chain how a data finding becomes an LLM citation
01
NSRL finding
proprietary data
02
Editorial coverage
BBC · Guardian · Wired
03
Web index
38 domains · DR 89
04
LLM citation
cited as authority
14earned placements
38linking domains
31dofollow links
89avg. DR
Earned coverage 7 live · 6 pending
92
Wired UKZoomX foam science
Dofollow ✓ Live
93
BBC SportBreaking2 reanalysis
Nofollow ✓ Live
91
The GuardianBreaking2 reanalysis
Dofollow ✓ Live
88
Ars TechnicaBreaking2 reanalysis
Dofollow ✓ Live
85
Runner's WorldZoomX foam science
Dofollow ✓ Live
81
Outside MagZoomX foam science
Dofollow ✓ Live
74
Athletics WeeklyNSRL scientist profiles
Dofollow ✓ Live
Forbes · NYT · iRunFar +5pitches submitted
Pending ⏳ 6 open
Visualization brief · Card 08 · Digital PR & offsite authority

An authority propagation map — a dark-background canvas showing the brand node at the centre, radiating outward. The pitch brief is shown as a "story seed" card at the origin. As the animation plays, the story radiates outward along publication tiers: DR 70+ publications appear first as large nodes (Runner's World, Athletics Weekly), connected by animated beams. DR 50–69 nodes appear next in a second ring. Organic/forum nodes populate a third ring.

Each publication node, when it "receives" the story, pulses and emits its own secondary ripple — representing the story being published and then re-cited by other sources. This cascade effect (publication → citation → LLM training signal) is shown as a wave of light bouncing from node to node, eventually reaching a floating "LLM" node at the far edge that lights up: "New external source: nike.com · ZoomX · 87% energy return".

The key stat (×3 story angles · ×14 publications · ×2 citation clusters) is shown as a live multiplier equation that animates like a slot machine resolving, building to a final citation probability score.

Passively: the publication nodes slowly rotate around the brand centre like satellites, with DR scores displayed and a faint orbit trail — suggesting the ongoing, accumulated nature of authority building rather than a one-time event.

Expert author programme

LLMs weight content by author credibility, not brand credibility. A page attributed to a brand name carries the authority of a brand. A technology explainer attributed to a named subject-matter expert with peer-reviewed publications and an ORCID ID carries the authority of a scientist. That's a different citation category entirely.

Named, schema-attributed authors across all hub pages. Each gets a dedicated entity page with full credential detail, sameAs links to ORCID and Google Scholar, and a Person JSON-LD block that makes them machine-readable as a verified expert. This works with any brand that has named internal experts, cited industry practitioners, or published research partners. Not just organisations with research labs.

Result: LLMs cite the author's claim, with the client's domain as the source.

1
Named author on every hub page
Schema-attributed — not a generic team credit
2
Entity page with ORCID + Scholar links
Machine-readable credentials, not a bio page
3
Outreach to existing publications
Each external paper links back to the author entity page on the client domain
SL
Dr. Sarah Lin
Senior Biomechanist · Nike Sport Research Lab
14
papers
PhD · Stanford Biomechanics NSRL 2019–
JSON-LD · Knowledge graph entity
"@type": "Person",
"author": "Article",
"sameAs": ["orcid.org/…", "scholar.google.com/…"]
ORCID ↗ Scholar ↗ nike.com/authors/sarah-lin ↗
Energy return in Pebax midsole foams J. Applied Biomechanics · 2022
Carbon plate propulsion in elite runners Sports Biomechanics · 2023
JK
Dr. James Kiptoo
Exercise Physiologist · Nike Sport Research Lab
11
papers
PhD · Loughborough Ex. Physiology NSRL 2021–
JSON-LD · Knowledge graph entity
"@type": "Person",
"author": "Article",
"sameAs": ["orcid.org/…", "scholar.google.com/…"]
ORCID ↗ Scholar ↗ nike.com/authors/james-kiptoo ↗
VO₂max and shoe technology in marathon racing Br. J. Sports Medicine · 2023
Metabolic cost reduction in carbon-plated footwear J. Sports Sciences · 2022
Person + Author · sameAs ORCID, Scholar
Visualization brief · Card 09 · Expert author programme

An entity graph twin — each scientist visualised not as a profile card but as a knowledge entity node in a live graph. Dr. Lin's node sits on the left, Dr. Kiptoo's on the right. Each node is a large, elegant circle with their initials in the centre. Radiating outward: connection threads to ORCID, Google Scholar, each journal publication, the nike.com author page, and each peer-reviewed paper.

The LLM platforms (ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.) are shown as rectangular nodes at the bottom. Animated pulses flow from the scientist nodes, through the publication network, and down into the LLM nodes — showing the chain: scientist → published paper → LLM training corpus → citation at prompt time.

Each credential detail (PhD, institution, years active) appears as floating metadata tags that orbit the scientist node slowly, like annotations in augmented reality. The schema hint ("Person + Author schema · sameAs: ORCID") appears as a code overlay on hover, rendered as a JSON-LD fragment with key fields highlighted.

Passively: the connection threads pulse at irregular intervals — some brighter, some dimmer — as if simulating real-time citation activity across the web. The overall feel is less "profile card" and more "this person exists in the knowledge graph of the internet, and we're making that visible."

Prompt monitoring & SOV tracking

Every engagement closes with a live monitoring system, not a PDF report. The same 140 prompts re-run every week from week 4 onwards. Every citation logged, position noted, share-of-voice calculated against named competitors. Regressions flagged within 48 hours and attributed: new competitor content, model update, or content losing relevance. That early-warning capability is what turns a one-off audit into a retainer relationship.

AI Citation Monitor wk 1 – wk 16 · Illustrative
Live · runs every 7 days 140 prompts · 4 platforms
Brand SOV · wk 16
61%
↑ +43 pts since wk 1
Prompts citing brand
86/140
↑ +54 from baseline
Regressions this week
3
↓ 3 prompts dropped
Nearest competitor
ASICS
38% avg SOV · −23 pts gap
Brand SOV · 16-week trend
Avg lift +48.8 pts
Brand SOV · wk 16 avg
AIO Gem GPT Pplx
Nike ↑ 78% 67% 61% 54%
ASICS 41% 38% 35% 39%
Adidas 34% 31% 40% 28%
Brooks 28% 24% 31% 33%
Hoka 22% 26% 19% 24%
Saucony 14% 17% 21% 18%
⚠ What a live monitor catches in a typical week
Warning "best shoe for overpronation"
Dropped: GPT pos 1 → pos 3 · ASICS new study indexed
Warning "marathon shoes under £200"
Dropped: AIO partial → absent · Brooks pricing update
Critical "carbon plate technology explained"
Absent all 4 platforms · competitor hub indexed
Visualization brief · Card 10 · Prompt monitoring & SOV tracking

A live mission control dashboard spanning the full width. Instead of static before/after bars, this is a 16-week time-series animation: four platform charts in a 2×2 grid, each showing a line graph that animates week-by-week left to right as if you're watching the engagement unfold in real time. The lines start flat and low (weeks 1–3), then inflect sharply upward from week 4 (content goes live), creating a dramatic elbow curve — the visual proof of causation.

Each platform line has a distinct colour and subtle glow. The background shifts temperature as SOV rises: cold dark blue at the start to warm amber-green by week 16, as if the chart itself heats up with success. Milestone markers appear at key weeks — a small flag icon labelled "Hub 01 published · wk 4" or "PR story live · wk 8" — showing exactly what caused each inflection.

The final "+48.8 pts" stat counts up from 0 in large bold type, each decimal place clicking into place like an odometer, with a brief particle burst and line glow peak at the end.

Secondary passive loop: after the animation completes, the four platform lines continue to pulse gently, with simulated "weekly prompt run" events — a small dot travelling along each line every few seconds — reinforcing that this is an ongoing measurement system, not a one-time report.

How AI Search Works · Complete Series
The mechanics behind every AI answer.
Most AI search advice skips the infrastructure that decides who gets cited. This series covers the full stack: from how transformers work to how Perplexity, ChatGPT and Google AIO rank sources, so you can make decisions that hold up as the platforms shift.
9 Articles
Platforms covered
Read the series

Want to know what's quietly broken?

A 30-minute call. We'll identify the two or three things worth digging into first. No deck, no pitch.

Book a 30-min call