AI answer visibility
Which priority questions name the business, which engines returned substantive answers, and how often competitors appear instead.
The audit checks the questions that matter, the businesses appearing first, and the public evidence supporting those answers. It gives us a real starting point instead of a generic score.
In practical terms, the audit tells you whether your business appears when a serious customer asks for help, who is receiving the recommendation instead, and what may be making that competitor easier to understand or trust.
The report is organized around three owner questions: Where do we stand? Why? What should we improve first?
Which priority questions name the business, which engines returned substantive answers, and how often competitors appear instead.
The business inside a market-locked competitor set, using live local evidence when available and clearly labeled model evidence when not.
Whether service pages, location facts, structured data, reviews, proof, and conversion paths are clear to machines and buyers.
The profiles, directories, publications, citations, and first-party pages that reinforce—or contradict—the business entity.
Named businesses returned in answers or local results, with the evidence used to distinguish verified competitors from incomplete proof.
A sequenced 90-day plan separating quick corrections from authority-building work that requires time and external corroboration.
This example is fictional. It shows the report structure without implying a client result or promised outcome.
That usually points to an evidence gap rather than a nonexistent business. The website may be clear enough for a branded search while the service-area proof and independent confirmation remain too thin for a broader recommendation.
| Layer | Illustrative finding | Confidence | First action |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI mentions | Named for one branded question; absent from four non-branded questions | Directional | Lock and repeat priority prompts |
| Local position | Competitor set pending until the exact market is confirmed | Incomplete | Select the local listing and city |
| Website | Services readable; location and proof signals thin | Audited | Strengthen service-area and evidence sections |
| Sources | Core profiles exist but service language is inconsistent | Audited | Align categories, descriptions, and citations |
Every exact claim depends on the correct entity and market. A chain or franchise is tied to the selected location unless the audit is explicitly national.
We resolve the name, domain, category, market, and location-level listing before scoring.
The same prompts are checked across supported answer and search surfaces. Failed or unavailable checks remain visible.
Competitors are restricted to the confirmed market. Unknown positions remain unknown rather than becoming fabricated names.
The website, reviews, profiles, citations, structured facts, and independent sources help explain the gap.
Approved changes are prioritized by credibility and business value, then evaluated against the original question set.
Answers can vary by engine, wording, date, location, personalization, and model changes. We can improve the evidence and measure the outcome; we cannot control an engine’s recommendation.
Frontier Rank can improve evidence and measure outcomes; it cannot control an engine’s recommendation.
A website-readiness score is not reported as an engine mention or a local recommendation position.
Unavailable, fallback, modeled, and live sources are separated so confidence is understandable.
Run a directional public preview, then confirm the entity and market for a source-locked audit.