Entities
Salience, disambiguation, canonical names, and linked references.
Methodology
Our GEO/AEO rubric reverse-engineers how answer engines crawl, parse, and cite content. It is not a keyword checklist--it is a technical evaluation of how ingestible and verifiable your page is for modern LLMs.
Research-driven process
Rubric pillars
Salience, disambiguation, canonical names, and linked references.
JSON-LD validity, ID coverage, graph completeness, and context alignment.
Prompt coverage, clarity, scannable headings, and structured responses.
Citations, evidence density, external corroboration, and trust cues.
Feeds, sitemaps, internal links, render fidelity, and language alternates.
Reputation signals, author entities, and cross-domain mentions.
Optimization KPIs
FAQ
It measures how easy your page is for AI systems to retrieve, parse, trust, and cite. The score is not a generic SEO number or a traffic forecast.
Because those are the structural signals that help models understand who the page is about, what claims it makes, and whether those claims are grounded enough to reuse in an answer.
Ranking is not the same as citability. A page can rank well and still be hard for an LLM to summarize cleanly. Answerability checks whether the content is organized for direct reuse.
No. The framework is consistent, but different engines emphasize different retrieval, formatting, and grounding behaviors. That is why the rubric uses weighted signals rather than a one-factor checklist.
No. The score is a decision tool. It helps prioritize where to edit, but strong editorial judgment and subject-matter accuracy still matter.
Want the deep dive?
The Lab section (coming soon) will house KPI experiments, prompts, and entity templates so your team can keep pace with model updates.