Citation Intelligence
See the evidence behind the recommendations.
Citation Intelligence maps the pages and domains that appear around AI recommendations, then compares that evidence with your own coverage.
The workflow
- 01Prompt
- 02AI answer
- 03Citation
- 04Source classification
- 05Competitor comparison
- 06Evidence gap
- 07Action
- 08Remeasurement
The loop closes: the last step is the first question set, rerun.
- 01
Prompt
A fixed buyer or seller question from the locked market set.
- 02
AI answer
The response captured verbatim, with provider and timestamp.
- 03
Citation
Every cited URL and domain recorded against that answer.
- 04
Source classification
Each source assigned to a class: portal, brokerage, publication, review platform, forum, social, own site, institutional.
- 05
Competitor comparison
Which sources repeatedly appear around competitors, and whether you appear on them.
- 06
Evidence gap
Where comparable coverage is absent, inaccurate or fragmented.
- 07
Action
A legitimate, documented correction or addition to the evidence environment.
- 08
Remeasurement
The same question set rerun, with the change log alongside the result.
What an engagement delivers
Seven artifacts, each traceable to preserved answers you can read.
- Citation inventory
- Every cited URL behind the captured answers, with its class, date and accuracy check.
- Recurring source analysis
- The classes and domains that appear repeatedly around recommendations in your market.
- Competitor source map
- Where competitors are represented and where you are absent on the same sources.
- Entity clarity report
- Name variants, duplicate records and conflicting facts found across public sources.
- Citation-gap matrix
- Each gap scored on importance, frequency, confidence, difficulty and relevance.
- Source-priority plan
- A tiered, documented sequence of legitimate corrections and additions.
- Remeasurement report
- The same question set rerun after the change window, with the change log beside the result.
Citation inventory
For every captured answer, we record the following fields. The inventory is the raw material for everything else on this page.
- Cited URL
- Cited domain
- Citation order within the answer
- Source title
- Publication date
- Source type
- Recommended entity in that answer
- Whether the citation supports the recommendation
- Whether the cited information is accurate
Recurring source analysis
Each cited source is assigned to a class so patterns can be compared across markets rather than domain by domain. The classes that recur are where evidence work pays.
- Listing portals
- Brokerage websites
- Local publications
- Industry publications
- Review platforms
- Community forums
- Social and video platforms
- Team websites
- Government or institutional sources
| Source class | Indexed frequency |
|---|---|
| Listing portals | 100 |
| Brokerage sites | 44 |
| Local publications | 22 |
| Community forums | 12 |
| Video | 7 |
| The team's own site | 0 |
Observed association, not causal proof. Indexed frequency expresses how often each class appeared around recommendations relative to the most-cited class in the same captured set.
Competitor source mapping
The source map shows which sources repeatedly appear behind competitors’ recommendations and whether the client has comparable coverage on those same sources. It is an observational comparison of evidence footprints — not a statement about why any particular answer was produced.
Every line in a delivered report carries one of these labels, so a count is never confused with an explanation.
| Evidence pattern | Recommended team | Overlooked team |
|---|---|---|
| Local publication mentions | Measured value | Measured value |
| Brokerage profile citations | Measured value | Measured value |
| Listing portal coverage | Measured value | Measured value |
| Own website cited | Measured value | Measured value |
| Entity naming consistency | Observed | Observed |
Placeholder structure. No values are shown until they come from an approved measurement.
Entity clarity analysis
- Name variants
- Every form of the team name found across public sources.
- Duplicate profiles
- Multiple competing records for the same team or agent.
- Stale brokerage affiliations
- Profiles still listing a former brokerage.
- Conflicting production claims
- Different volume or transaction figures across sources.
- Incorrect locations
- Service areas or offices stated wrongly.
- Fragmented team-member information
- Members attributed inconsistently or not at all.
Citation-gap matrix
- Importance
- How central the gap is to the questions the client cares about.
- Frequency
- How often the pattern appears across captured answers.
- Confidence
- How strongly the observation is supported by the preserved evidence.
- Difficulty
- Effort, cost, dependencies and time to close the gap.
- Relevance
- Fit with the client's target market and target question set.
What this cannot prove
- A source appearing around a recommendation does not prove it caused the recommendation.
- Citation sets vary between runs; the pattern across answers is the finding, not any single citation.
- Closing a gap does not guarantee a citation, a recommendation or a position.
Source-priority recommendations
Gaps are sequenced by what can be corrected honestly and quickly, not by what sounds impressive.
- Tier 1 — correct what is wrong
- Inaccurate or conflicting facts on sources already cited in your market. Lowest effort, highest confidence, no new coverage required.
- Tier 2 — complete what is thin
- Sources cited around competitors where you have a record but it is incomplete, outdated or fragmented.
- Tier 3 — earn what is missing
- Classes of source that recur around recommendations in your market and carry no record of your team at all. Slowest, and dependent on third parties.
- Never
- Hidden text, prompt injection, fabricated reviews, manufactured forum accounts, mass-generated pages, or any claim your production cannot substantiate.
Before-and-after remeasurement
After the change window, the same question set is rerun under the same conditions and reported beside the change log.
| Measure | Baseline run | Remeasured run | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recommendation share | Measured value | Measured value | Reported |
| Citation share | Measured value | Measured value | Reported |
| Own site cited | Measured value | Measured value | Reported |
| Entity inconsistencies open | Measured value | Measured value | Reported |
| Documented actions in window | — | Change log | Listed |
Placeholder structure. No before-and-after figures are published here; a remeasurement is reported to the client from their own runs, and published only with written permission.
What this cannot prove
- A change between runs is not proof that an action caused it; answer sets vary between runs on their own.
- The change log records what was done, not what the model did with it.
- No remeasurement outcome is promised, guaranteed or sold in advance.
How to read these findings
We do not claim that a citation proves causation. We identify recurring evidence patterns worth investigating and test whether legitimate improvements change the measured result.
Keep reading
Request a citation analysis for your market.
One client per market. Start by telling me where you work.