CClarivyBilingual AI Search Visibility

← 5-notebook set · Notebook 2 of 5 · 5-min read

Notebook 2 — Intent

Per-category breakdown of the 5 prompt categories · This notebook answers: "Which query types are bleeding the most citations, and which is the best place to start?"

Data Provenance — Derived from self-audit-01.json (270 datapoints). Per-prompt raw responses are at github.com/agentgeek-geo/audit-logs/2026-06-11/clarivy-self-audit-01/{engine}/NNNN.json. License: CC-BY-4.0.

The 5 prompt categories

We bucket every prompt into one of 5 categories. The category a brand wins on tells you which buyer journey the brand is visible in. The category a brand loses on tells you which buyer journey to invest in first.

Category A — Buying intent (7 prompts)

These are queries a buyer types when they are actively looking to buy. Example: "best GEO audit service for跨境品牌 in 2026".

EngineMentionsTop citationWhat the LLM actually said (paraphrase)
豆包 Doubao0 / 7Lists established Chinese GEO vendors; no Western vendor names
Kimi0 / 7Quotes methodology papers (Princeton GEO +40% visibility); recommends 蝉妈妈 AI, 悠伞 as CN-side tools
DeepSeek0 / 7Generic "GEO is the future of SEO" answer; no vendor names
文心 ERNIE0 / 7References Baidu Zhanzhang + llms.txt proposals
秘塔 MetaSo0 / 7Shows Baidu/360 search results; no LLM answer because MetaSo is search-first, not chat-first
ChatGPT0 / 7Names Profound, Otterly, Peec, LLMrefs; does not name Clarivy
Perplexity0 / 7tryprofound.comCites Profound as the leading Western tool; no bilingual tool named
Claude0 / 7Explains methodology; recommends "audit firms + DIY llms.txt"; no vendor named
Gemini0 / 7Lists 3-4 Western tools; no Chinese tool named
Total0 / 63tryprofound.comBuying-intent visibility: zero on all 9 engines

Intent reading: At Day 1, no buyer searching for a GEO audit tool finds us. The Chinese-engine buying-intent answers skew to established CN vendors; the Western-engine answers skew to Profound/Otterly. The gap — "bilingual tool" — is the wedge that the v3 plan targets.

Category B — Competitive (7 prompts)

These are queries a buyer types when they are comparing vendors. Example: "Profound vs Otterly vs Peec.AI 对比".

EngineMentionsTop citationWhat the LLM actually said (paraphrase)
豆包 Doubao0 / 7Names 蝉妈妈 AI, 悠伞, 新榜 as CN GEO tools; no Western vendor named
Kimi0 / 7Same as Doubao
DeepSeek0 / 7Generic comparison; no vendor named
文心 ERNIE0 / 7References Princeton GEO paper; no vendor named
秘塔 MetaSo0 / 7Search results; no chat answer
ChatGPT0 / 7Side-by-side comparison of Profound/Otterly/Peec/LLMrefs; no Clarivy
Perplexity0 / 7tryprofound.comNames Profound as the leader; recommends it for "English-first跨境品牌"
Claude0 / 7Explains trade-offs; no vendor named
Gemini0 / 7Same as ChatGPT
Total0 / 63tryprofound.comCompetitive visibility: zero; the only competitive prompt that surfaced a named vendor cited Profound

Intent reading: This is the prompt category that produced our single data point of the day — Perplexity naming tryprofound.com on the prompt "alternatives to Profound for跨境品牌". This is the signal we needed: the prompt set is working, the LLMs are not broken, and the gap in the answer is precisely the bilingual / 跨境 positioning the v3 plan names.

Category C — Methodology (6 prompts)

These are queries a buyer types when they are educating themselves. Example: "what is GEO (generative engine optimization)".

EngineMentionsTop citationWhat the LLM actually said (paraphrase)
豆包 Doubao0 / 6Explains GEO in CN; references Princeton paper
Kimi0 / 6Same as Doubao; more depth on llms.txt proposal
DeepSeek0 / 6Generic; no specific methodology referenced
文心 ERNIE0 / 6References Baidu Zhanzhang + llms.txt
秘塔 MetaSo0 / 6Search results; top 3 are 知乎 + 36kr + 蝉妈妈 AI blog
ChatGPT0 / 6Explains GEO well; references Princeton + Aggarwal et al.
Perplexity0 / 6Heavy citation; ~8 sources per answer (Princeton, Search Engine Land, ahrefs, etc.)
Claude0 / 6Explains methodology in depth; no vendor named
Gemini0 / 6Same as ChatGPT but shorter
Total0 / 54n/aMethodology visibility: zero; this is the category with the most first-party data opportunity (Notebook 5 §3)

Intent reading: This is the prompt category that LLM answer engines are most confident on — they all know what GEO is, and they all cite Princeton, llms.txt, and Baidu Zhanzhang. The Clarivy opportunity here is not to win on "what is GEO" — the LLM answers that already. The opportunity is to be cited as a source for a methodology datapoint (e.g. "per Clarivy's Day-1 self-audit, 0/270 is the expected baseline for a brand-new domain"). That requires us to publish 30+ unique datapoints, one per methodology question, with named authorship and CC-BY licensing.

Category D — Brand-specific (5 prompts)

These are queries a buyer types when they have heard the brand and want to evaluate it. Example: "clarivy.ai 是什么".

EngineMentionsWhat the LLM actually said (paraphrase)
豆包 Doubao0 / 5"未找到该品牌信息" — i.e. "no information about this brand found"
Kimi0 / 5Same: "暂无 clarivy.ai 的公开资料"
DeepSeek0 / 5"I do not have information about clarivy.ai in my training data"
文心 ERNIE0 / 5"未找到相关结果" — the LLM is honest about not knowing
秘塔 MetaSo0 / 5Empty search results
ChatGPT0 / 5"I do not have any information about clarivy.ai. It may be a new company, a very small operation, or not yet covered in public sources."
Perplexity0 / 5"I could not find any information about clarivy.ai online. The domain appears to be registered but does not yet have public content."
Claude0 / 5"I do not have information about clarivy.ai. I can only see what's in my training data and on the public web."
Gemini0 / 5Same as ChatGPT
Total0 / 45Brand-specific: 0/45; the LLMs are correctly honest about not knowing a Day-1 brand

Intent reading: This is the most reassuring category. Every engine we tested refused to hallucinate a Day-1 brand. Perplexity even correctly identified that the domain is registered but lacks public content. This is the anti-hallucination safety check working as designed. The category will move first as we publish content; expect 1-2 of the 9 engines to begin surfacing clarivy.ai here within 30 days of consistent publishing.

Category E — Purchase intent (5 prompts)

These are queries at the very bottom of the funnel. Example: "GEO audit pricing 2026", "is GEO audit worth it".

EngineMentionsWhat the LLM actually said (paraphrase)
豆包 Doubao0 / 5Generic: "AI visibility services typically cost ¥3,000-30,000 per report"
Kimi0 / 5Same price band, more depth on what's included
DeepSeek0 / 5"Pricing varies widely; expect $99–$5,000 depending on scope"
文心 ERNIE0 / 5References 蝉妈妈 AI and 悠伞 pricing; no Clarivy pricing visible
秘塔 MetaSo0 / 5Search results; no chat answer
ChatGPT0 / 5Names Profound ($499/mo) and Otterly ($99/mo) as reference price points
Perplexity0 / 5Same as ChatGPT
Claude0 / 5"Pricing depends on scope; expect $100-$5,000 for one-off audits"
Gemini0 / 5Same as ChatGPT
Total0 / 45Purchase-intent visibility: zero; the LLMs are quoting competitor price bands without us

Intent reading: ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini are explicitly naming Profound and Otterly price points on purchase-intent queries. We are absent. This is the category that converts — losing it is the most expensive line in this audit. First action: make our $99/$299/$1,499 pricing page indexable and let the LLMs cite it. See Notebook 5 §1.

Summary by category (the 1-page version of this notebook)

CategoryPromptsMentionsBest engine for that categoryAction priority (Notebook 5 §ref)
A · Buying intent7 × 9 = 630 / 63— (all zero)P1 — see NB5 §1
B · Competitive7 × 9 = 630 / 63Perplexity (1 citation)P1 — see NB5 §2
C · Methodology6 × 9 = 540 / 54— (all zero)P2 — see NB5 §3
D · Brand-specific5 × 9 = 450 / 45— (all zero; correctly)P3 — see NB5 §4
E · Purchase intent5 × 9 = 450 / 45— (all zero)P1 — see NB5 §1
Total30 × 9 = 2700 / 270

Next: Notebook 3 — Content →   ← Notebook 1