Worked sample · illustration-1
Inspect the evidence before the recommendation.
A three-part teaching example of a Visibility Preview. Every record below is invented so the counting and interpretation can be checked without implying a client outcome.
Entirely synthetic teaching example. No live platform was queried. No client, performance result, market estimate or causal claim is represented.
Sample page 1
Scope and transparent counts
Business: Example Business (fictional)
Three fictional buyer questions, two fictional platforms, two runs each. All twelve records are valid by construction; no failures or exclusions. This is not a market sample.
The platform labels are fictional. There are no real collection dates, source URLs, transcripts or customer locations behind this demonstration.
Brand mentions
6 of 12
One mention flag per response, even when a response could name the business more than once.
Explicit recommendations
4 of 12
Counted separately from mentions. Recommendation flags imply a mention in this example.
Owned citations
3 of 12
Responses flagged as citing an owned source. This is response coverage, not the total number of links.
The fictional peer has 8 mention-bearing responses. The example business accounts for 6 of 14 counted brand-response appearances (42.9%). This is a share within two fictional brands and twelve invented records—not market share.
Sample page 2
All twelve coded evidence records
These are synthetic coded records, not transcripts of real AI outputs. Every row is available in the downloadable JSON. No failed observations are concealed.
Q1
Which providers offer the service in Example Market?
Q2
Which providers explain how this service is delivered?
Q3
Which providers should a buyer compare for this service?
| ID | Question | Platform / run | Mention | Recommendation | Owned citation | Peer mention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | q1 | Fictional A / 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 02 | q1 | Fictional A / 2 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 03 | q1 | Fictional B / 1 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| 04 | q1 | Fictional B / 2 | No | No | No | Yes |
| 05 | q2 | Fictional A / 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 06 | q2 | Fictional A / 2 | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 07 | q2 | Fictional B / 1 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 08 | q2 | Fictional B / 2 | No | No | No | No |
| 09 | q3 | Fictional A / 1 | No | No | No | Yes |
| 10 | q3 | Fictional A / 2 | No | No | No | No |
| 11 | q3 | Fictional B / 1 | No | No | No | No |
| 12 | q3 | Fictional B / 2 | No | No | No | No |
Sample page 3
Interpretation, uncertainty and the next action
Observation
The fictional business appears in six records and in none of the four q3 comparison records. The peer appears in one of those q3 records. The totals alone do not explain why.
Interpretation to investigate
Review whether the comparison question matches the actual offer and whether relevant commercial information is available. The invented rows do not establish a technical, content or authority cause.
Proposed next step
In a real engagement, an analyst would review the relevant comparison pages and observed sources with the business owner. The output would be a specific page change or a better-defined follow-up test, not an automatic retainer recommendation.
Ownership and review
The business confirms the facts. An agreed content or development owner makes approved changes. The analyst repeats the relevant observations under documented conditions. This demonstration includes no before-and-after result.
Limitations: entirely invented data; two fictional platforms; three questions; no real customer demand weights; no claim of statistical representativeness, causation, Google rankings or revenue. It illustrates the structure of a preview, not the depth of a paid competitive report.