Audit workbook
Where are competitors being cited ahead of your brand?
Buyers do not always shortlist the best product. They shortlist the product AI can explain first, compare cleanly, and support with proof.
Start here
Find the prompts where competitors appear first.
- Audit goal
- Find high-intent prompts where competitors appear ahead of the company.
- Evidence to collect
- Brands mentioned, mention order, sources cited and the company's status.
- Decision output
- A prioritised list of visibility, positioning, credibility or evidence issues to investigate.
Select
Select high-intent prompt families
Start with category, comparison, fit and proof prompts that are already close to a purchase decision.
Competitors usually appear ahead of your brand in high-intent research prompts, especially when buyers are comparing options, checking fit, or looking for proof. In AI search, this often shows up as sourced-not-mentioned behavior, where your brand may be used as a source but the answer names competitors instead.
The most important prompts to audit are the ones buyers use to build shortlists: "best X for Y," "X vs Y," "top alternatives to X," "which tool is best for [use case]," "what is the best option for [company size]," and "does [brand] work with [stack]".
| Prompt family | What buyers ask | What to look for |
|---|---|---|
| Category | "Best [product] for [use case]" | Which brands define the category first |
| Comparison | "[Your brand] vs [competitor]" | Which brand gets recommended and why |
| Fit | "Is [product] right for [company size/industry]" | Which brands are framed as a better fit |
| Proof | "What proof is there for [brand]" | Which competitors have stronger third-party validation |
Record this: the exact prompt family and prompt tested for every observation.
Record
Record each answer in the audit ledger
Keep direct observations separate from the working diagnosis captured in the final field.
For each prompt, capture the answer engine result, the brands mentioned, the order of mention, and the source pages the model used. If a competitor appears before you, note whether that happened alongside clearer category language, stronger proof, better comparison coverage, or more third-party citations.
- Prompt tested
The exact buyer prompt used for the observation.
- Brands mentioned
The companies named in the answer.
- Mention order
The sequence in which those companies appear.
- Sources cited
The source pages associated with the answer.
- Your brand status
Missing entirely, cited only as a source, or mentioned after a competitor.
- Likely gap - interpretive
A working diagnosis to review against positioning, evidence, sources and content.
Decide
Classify the company's observed status
Use the observed status to direct investigation without treating it as proof of the cause.
Diagnose
Review five possible causes
Treat each item as a possible explanation and inspect supporting evidence before accepting the diagnosis.
An observed gap can have one or more of five possible explanations: clearer category definition, clearer comparison pages, stronger proof, more third-party mentions, or answers structured in a way that is easier to extract.
Possible cause: category definition
Evidence to inspect: whether competitor pages make the product category and use case easier to classify.
Possible cause: comparison clarity
Evidence to inspect: whether competitors answer alternative and versus prompts more directly.
Possible cause: proof
Evidence to inspect: whether competitor claims are easier to support with case evidence and outcomes.
Possible cause: third-party mentions
Evidence to inspect: whether external mentions reinforce consistent category and proof signals.
Possible cause: structured answers
Evidence to inspect: whether competitor content is easier for answer engines to extract and compare.
Possible consensus signal: if the web consistently describes a competitor in the same way, answer engines may repeat that pattern.
Prioritise
Prioritise investigation and first fixes
Start with evidence review, then assign the areas that directly address the prompts where the company loses.
Comparison pages
Answer "[your brand] vs [competitor]" and alternative prompts directly.
Why us pages
Make positioning, tradeoffs, and differentiation easy to understand.
Fit pages
Clarify who the product is best for, who it is not for, and where it performs strongest.
Proof pages
Collect case evidence, outcomes, testimonials, metrics, and trust signals in one place.
Third-party mention coverage
Close authority gaps by earning consistent mentions around the same category, use-case, and proof themes.
Structured answer formatting
Rewrite key sections so answer engines can extract clear definitions, comparisons, and recommendations.
Record
Record the investigation output
Finish with a qualified action plan tied to observations and evidence.
Audit output
A prioritised investigation plan
The high-intent prompts and prompt families where competitors appear first.
The direct answer, mention-order, source and brand-status evidence for each observation.
The visibility, positioning, credibility, evidence or formatting issues that deserve investigation next.