Case · Entry 01· How it moved

0 → 8 of 12 named on every direct industry query.

Local service business. Fully anonymized. Baseline scan on 09.14.26 found the client named on 60% of category queries at position 12 in search. Four weeks after shipping the recommended fix, the re-scan named them on 100% at position 5. Same fix, both surfaces, three sources agreed before we recommended anything.

Vertical
Local service business
Region
Anonymized metro
Sample
30 days · 12 queries
Sources agreed
3 of 3
01 · The baseline

What the first scan actually found.

The engagement opened with a full three-source scan. Not a spot-check. Hundreds of query variants across the twelve category queries the client's customers actually ask, run against ChatGPT, Claude, and Google AI Overviews. Search Console pulled alongside for the same query set. A rendered-markup audit of every retrievable page on the site.

The AI mention rate came back at 60%. Named on some of the twelve, invisible on the rest. Position in Google search averaged 12. Page two territory. The site was not broken. It was illegible. Crawlers reached most pages, and the pages loaded fast, and the copy was written by a real person. That was not the problem.

The problem was three sources agreeing that the same entity signals were missing from every place assistants and search engines look for them.

Source A
AI answers

Source-map capture showed the assistants reaching the site but pulling from a category page missing schema, then supplementing with competitor pages that had it. The client's own copy was cited on 3 of 12 queries. Competitors were named in their place.

AI mention rate · 60%
Source B
Search performance

Google Search Console showed the client indexed for every category query but averaging position 12. Click-through rate below 2% on impressions that never converted. Traffic pattern consistent with page-two invisibility.

Avg position · 12
Source C
Site structure

Rendered-markup audit found empty JSON-LD schemas across every location page, canonical URLs pointing at a staging domain that had not resolved since 2023, and review widgets loaded inside iframes no crawler could read.

Structural drift · high
02 · The correlation

Where the three sources agreed.

None of the individual findings were enough to recommend a fix. A missing schema on its own could be a one-off. A page-two search rank on its own could be a competitive metro. An AI answer citing a competitor once could be an outlier query.

All three showing the same gap on the same queries is evidence. The correlation was not the AI mention rate, and it was not the search position. It was that both surfaces were reading the same broken structure and drawing the same conclusion: the entity is not clearly claimed here.

That is a fix. It went in the spec.

The bar we hold

Not a fix until three sources agree it is one. Everything else stays a note in the report, not a recommendation.

03 · The spec

What we recommended.

The brief handed over was six specific fixes, each tied to at least two of the three source signals. Not an audit report. A build spec their team could ship against, with expected lift documented for both AI citation and search rank.

  1. 01
    Entity-first rebuild. One canonical entity claim, echoed in schema, GBP, and page copy across every location.
    3/3 sources
  2. 02
    Per-location LocalBusiness schema with matching canonical URLs, NAP validated against Google Business Profile.
    3/3 sources
  3. 03
    Category answer pages retrievable by name, one per direct industry query, cross-linked to the entity graph.
    3/3 sources
  4. 04
    Review schema exposed in server-rendered HTML, not inside an iframe. Reviews now crawlable, not just visible.
    2/3 sources
  5. 05
    Canonical hygiene sweep. Staging domain retired from schema. All references pointed at the production URL.
    2/3 sources
  6. 06
    Robots access verified per crawler. GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot all allowed on the category and location pages.
    2/3 sources
04 · The build

Four weeks. Their team.

The client's own development team executed the spec. LinksMaxing was not the builder on this engagement. That is the model. You get the diagnostic and the spec. You ship it, or we do. Either way the same numbers get measured.

09.14.26 · day 0
Baseline scan complete

Three-source scan run against 12 category queries. 60% AI mention rate. Position 12 average in search. Structural findings documented.

09.16.26 · day 2
Brief delivered

Six-fix spec handed to client team. Expected lift documented per fix. Signals-that-pointed-to-fix mapping included.

09.30.26 · day 16
Fixes 01, 02, 03 shipped

Entity rebuild, schema, and answer pages live. Client team completed the entity-first architecture ahead of the sprint estimate.

10.09.26 · day 25
Fixes 04, 05, 06 shipped

Reviews un-iframed. Canonicals swept. Bot access verified. Structural drift closed to zero.

10.14.26 · day 30
Re-scan against the same query set

Identical query variants, same engines, cache-busted. Delta reports generated per signal, per surface, per engine.

05 · The result

Same fix. Both surfaces.

The re-scan ran on 10.14.26, exactly 30 days after baseline. Same 12 category queries. Same three engines. Same three-source correlation methodology. No new queries added, no favorable engines swapped in. Cache-busted so nothing came from the previous scan.

AI mention rate
60%→100%
+40 pts
Named on every one of the twelve category queries, across ChatGPT, Claude, and Google AI Overviews. Zero misses.
Avg search position
12→5
7 positions higher
Off page two into the top five organic results. Click-through rate on impressions tripled in the same window.
06 · What we did not touch

The findings we refused to recommend.

The baseline scan surfaced other things. Single-source signals. Findings that looked like fixes on one surface and neutral on the other. Cases where a competitor was named for structural reasons the client could not change without misrepresenting themselves.

These went in the report as notes. Not the spec. This is the line.

  • A category query where ChatGPT structurally routes to a professional credentialing body, not to any specific business.
    Ceiling · Not winnable
  • A schema tweak that would have lifted AI citation on one engine but showed no correlation with search rank on any engine.
    Single-source · Refused
  • A content expansion into an adjacent vertical the client does not actually serve.
    Not honest · Refused
  • A backlink push that would have driven search authority but had no evidence of moving AI answers.
    Single-source · Refused

See where you stand.

Your first scan across all three sources. Delivered as a build spec your team can ship against, or one we build if that is the ask. Every finding traced back to the source that surfaced it. Every recommendation carrying the correlation that earned it.

Request your scan →

Or write directly to [email protected]