Before you write the answer.
Use questions from real conversations, search queries and evaluation criteria. Keep each source attached to its wording. Pick one you can answer with evidence.
Finds: the right question“We conserve water” opens a conversation. It does not answer the next question. What changed? Compared with what? How was it measured? Publish the answer someone can examine, with the evidence beside it.
Choose one consequential question and finish the answer before adding more content.
Use questions from real conversations, search queries and evaluation criteria. Keep each source attached to its wording. Pick one you can answer with evidence.
Finds: the right questionSearch the category, then your name with the question. Record what each page answers and name each gap on the pages checked.
Finds: what is missingQuestion as the heading, plain answer below, then the baseline, the place and period, the method, observed versus projected, and the limits.
Earns: an answer to examinePick one question, check what people find today, publish the clearest supported answer. Structure alone proves nothing. Evidence does the work.
Start: one questionThe newsletter is where the private invitations go out: when we go live, and when the inner circles open.
Subscribe for the private invitations to live sessions and inner circles, plus a short read on AI search each week.
SubscribeShort videos like this one, each answering one question about being found by AI.
Subscribe on YouTubeIt opens a conversation but leaves the next questions unanswered: what changed, compared with what, and how it was measured.
From questions recorded in real conversations, relevant search queries and the criteria people use to evaluate you. Each is a different kind of evidence.
The baseline, the place and period measured, the method and data source, what was observed versus projected, and the limits of the claim.
No. Clear structure makes an answer easy to understand and check. It does not prove performance or guarantee inclusion in AI answers.