The corroboration layer
The off-domain sources engines check before they name you
A system deciding whether to recommend you is checking your claims against the rest of the web. What your own site says is one source. What independent places say is corroboration, and corroboration is what turns a claim into a name in an answer. This is the layer that makes every page you publish more believable.
Every plan queries all 6. See how each engine picks who it names
What we measured
firms listed in their own regional directories were named by zero AI engines in our MSP study. A listing is not a citation, and breadth of trusted sources beats volume of links.
Engines queried
ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Microsoft Copilot. Every plan, including the free one.
Answers kept
Every answer is stored word for word, so any number on your report can be checked against the text it came from.
The gap this closes
- The usual version starts from a directory list somebody published in 2019.
- It ends in a spreadsheet of submissions and a folder of nothing.
- Almost nobody starts from evidence about which sources engines actually cite.
- Your scan already stores those sources, including for the answers that left you out.
What you end up with
- A ranked list of off-domain gaps drawn from your own scan, not a generic checklist.
- The sources the engines cited in the answers where a rival was named instead.
- Priority order, so the first move is the one most likely to matter.
- Stated plainly: we do not pitch journalists, build links, or run outreach for you.
How it works
Three steps, and you only do the first one.
The scan records who got cited
Every answer an engine returns is stored with the sources it drew on. When a source is cited in an answer that names a competitor and skips you, that pairing becomes a citation gap: a specific place a machine reads that has nothing to say about you.
The crawl records what you are missing
The same scan crawls your site and checks the listings and profiles a firm in your category is expected to hold. Missing ones land in the Fixes list under authority, next to the schema and technical items, since they are the same kind of one-time job.
The next scan verifies what you closed
Claim a profile or earn a mention and the next crawl and the next set of answers referee it. An item you marked done that we cannot detect gets flagged as undetected rather than quietly accepted, because a fix you cannot verify is a fix you are taking on faith.
What you get on each plan
You get a ranked list of off-domain gaps drawn from your own scan, not a generic directory checklist. Read the last plan row before you buy, because this is advice and verification rather than an outreach service.
Track
Free- Included on the free scan too
- Which sources the engines cited in their answers
- Which of those were cited in answers that skipped you
- Landed in Fixes under authority, ranked
- Review-site and directory listings the crawl found missing
Fix
$99/mo- Weekly scans turn the list into a loop, not a snapshot
- A listing you claim shows up in next week's crawl
- Verified rather than ticked
- Drafted pages give somebody a reason to cite you
- Alerts when a rival appears in sources that ignore you
Dominate
$499/mo- Wider budget widens the citation evidence
- Turns the list into a sequence, not a pile
- The source cited again and again comes first
- A person reads the list with you and calls out busywork
Rule
$1999/mo- Portfolio level, same publications serving several brands
- Sequencing becomes which brand gets the placement
- Human strategy on top, because a pitch is a relationship
Which engine actually leans on this
Your row is News and PR. The rest of the grid is on the engines page.
| Channel | ChatGPT | Claude | Perplexity | Gemini | Google AI Mode | Microsoft Copilot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Your own site Schema, answer pages, llms.txt, crawlability | Heavy Vendor | Heavy Vendor | Heavy Measured | Heavy Our read | Heavy Vendor | Heavy Our read |
| Reviews and directories G2, Clutch, Capterra, Trustpilot, Google Business | Moderate Our read | Light Measured | Heavy Our read | Moderate Our read | Moderate Measured | Moderate Measured |
| Reddit and forums Unpaid opinion, where buyers go for the unvarnished view | Light Our read | Light Measured | Heavy Our read | Moderate Our read | Heavy Measured | Moderate Measured |
| Video YouTube. Only counts once there is a transcript | Moderate Our read | Light Our read | Moderate Our read | Heavy Our read | Heavy Measured | Light Measured |
| Newsletters LinkedIn, Substack, Beehiiv. Published under a named person | Moderate Our read | Light Our read | Moderate Our read | Heavy Our read | Heavy Measured | Light Our read |
| News and PR Earned coverage, wire pickup, journalist mentions | Heavy Vendor | Heavy Vendor | Heavy Our read | Moderate Our read | Moderate Our read | Moderate Our read |
Your own site. Your own site counts most for ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Microsoft Copilot.
Reviews and directories. Reviews and directories counts most for Perplexity. It is a light signal for Claude.
Reddit and forums. Reddit and forums counts most for Perplexity, Google AI Mode. It is a light signal for ChatGPT, Claude.
Video. Video counts most for Gemini, Google AI Mode. It is a light signal for Claude, Microsoft Copilot.
Newsletters. Newsletters counts most for Gemini, Google AI Mode. It is a light signal for Claude, Microsoft Copilot.
News and PR. News and PR counts most for ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity.
Where this comes from
- OpenAI: publishers and developers FAQ States that a site must allow OAI-SearchBot to be eligible for ChatGPT search at all.
- OpenAI: introducing ChatGPT search The named publisher partnerships behind the news and PR row.
- Anthropic: web search tool documentation Citations are always enabled, and Claude only searches when a question needs current information.
- Google Search Central: AI features and your website AI Overviews and AI Mode report inside the ordinary Search Console Performance report.
- Search Console Help: impressions, position and clicks How AI Mode counts a click, and why a follow-up question is treated as a new query.
- Dan Petrovic: citation mining of OpenAI grounding metadata Reddit retrieved in 76 percent of OpenAI searches and selected 0.61 percent of the time.
- Our production scan database, read 12 August 2026 46 completed reports, 34 brands, 419 buying questions, 2,421 answered buying cells. Where the per-engine mention rates come from.
- Our 15-region managed services study 743 records, 566 named by an engine, and the per-engine corroboration rates.
- What our crawler finds on real sites 39 readable crawls: 38 with no llms.txt, 26 with no FAQ schema, 16 with no Organization schema.
- How we check an AI visibility report The method behind every first-party number on this page, including what it cannot show.
Engine behaviour moves month to month. This table is maintained, not published once.
The proof, including the parts that flatter nobody
The strongest evidence for this layer is the Clutch finding above, and it comes from our own fieldwork rather than from a vendor blog. Four engines, 15 North American regions, every name resolved to a real website, and 139 of 228 directory-listed managed IT firms named by nobody. The full method is published, including what it failed to establish.
The scan corpus says the same thing from another angle. Across the 46 completed reports behind this page, the best any engine managed was naming the brand in 7.4% of the buying questions we put to it, on firms that arrived already suspecting they were missing.
What we cannot claim: we do not know that a specific listing caused a specific mention. Off-domain work resists attribution by its nature. What the product gives you instead is a gap that points at an answer, a crawl that confirms the fix is live, and the same question re-asked on all six engines afterwards.
Read the MSP AI Visibility Report 2026 →A worked example: the authority list from one scan
This is the shape of what lands in the Fixes list for a services firm after a scan. The firm and the sources are illustrative. Each row exists because something in the scan produced it, which is the difference between this and a directory checklist.
Authority gaps, ranked
| Gap | Where it came from | What closing it looks like | How it gets verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clutch profile incomplete | Cited in three answers that named two rivals | Full profile, four client reviews with specifics | Next crawl checks the profile resolves and is complete |
| No presence on the regional trade body list | Cited by Google AI Mode in the answer that lost you the shortlist | Membership plus a listing with your specialisms | Next scan re-asks the same question on all six engines |
| No named-expert page for the founder | Two engines described a rival's principal by name | A bio page with credentials, marked up, linked from the pages you publish | Crawl checks the page and its markup |
| Vendor partner directory entry missing | Cited in a comparison answer | Claim the partner listing, keep the details consistent with your site | Crawl checks consistency across your own pages |
| Review count behind on the category platform | Rival named in five answers has three times the reviews | A standing ask at project close, real clients only | Tracked as a count over scans, never fabricated |
What is deliberately absent from that list
- Bulk directory submissions, which build a footprint and no corroboration.
- Paid placements presented as editorial, which are a legal problem and a credibility problem.
- Any suggestion involving a review you did not earn.
- Link targets chosen for domain authority scores rather than for whether a reader learns something about you.
Every row names its evidence, which is the property that makes the list arguable. You can disagree with the ranking, and you should, because you know which relationships you already have. What you cannot do is claim the gaps were invented, because each one points at an answer you can read.
How it actually works
The mechanism, for anyone who wants it. Open a card to read the detail.
Why corroboration is the mechanism
Put yourself in the position of a system that has to name three vendors and stand behind the answer. Every vendor site says the same things about itself. The only way to separate them is to check whether anything independent agrees, and the more independent places agree, the safer the name is to use.
Read the detail
That is why breadth beats volume so decisively here. Ten mentions across ten credible, on-topic places is ten independent agreements. A hundred links from one network of low-quality directories is one signal repeated, and a suspicious one. Breadth is what an engine can corroborate. Volume from one source is what it discounts.
It also explains why this layer makes everything else work harder. An FAQ page states an answer. An FAQ page plus three independent sources that describe your firm the same way makes that answer safe to quote. The on-site work and the off-domain work are two halves of one argument.
Which places get read, and what a listing does not do
The platforms that carry weight vary by category and the difference is large. For software, G2 holds a substantial share of voice, with one 30,000-citation analysis putting it near 22.4% for software queries and finding that a 10% increase in reviews tracks with roughly 2% more AI citations. For services, consulting and agencies, Clutch is the disproportionate one.
Read the detail
Being listed is necessary and nowhere near sufficient, and our own research is blunt about the size of that gap. Across 15 North American regions we compared four engines' managed IT recommendations against the firms listed in those regions' own Clutch directories, and 139 of 228 directory-listed firms were named by no engine at all.
Read that as the shape of the work rather than as a reason to skip the listing. A directory row carries a name and a category, which is a thin thing to corroborate. A complete profile with real reviews, specifics and consistent details across several places is a description a machine can use. The listing is the floor.
Nofollow, and where SEO instincts mislead
This is the point that trips up teams with good SEO habits. Nofollow is an instruction to a ranking system about whether to pass link equity. A system reading a page to answer a question is not running that calculation. It reads the sentence, sees your firm described, and treats it as information.
Read the detail
So a nofollow mention on a review platform or a major publication is a full-strength corroboration signal even though an SEO tool scores it at zero. Judge a placement by whether a machine reading that page would learn something true and specific about your firm, not by the link attribute.
The corollary matters more. Bulk directory services that blast hundreds of low-quality submissions build precisely the footprint you do not want attached to a young domain, and they build no corroboration at all, because nothing on those pages describes you in a way worth repeating.
Fabricated reviews are not on the table
We get asked, so here is the answer in one place. Buying or fabricating reviews violates every platform's terms, is unlawful in several jurisdictions, and gets wiped when detected, usually along with the legitimate reviews around it. A young brand cannot afford that outcome and we will not help you reach it.
Read the detail
The version that works is slower and permanent. Ask your real clients, at the moment a project lands well, on the platform that matters for your category. Ten genuine reviews with specifics in them corroborate you better than fifty generic ones, because specifics are what a system can quote.
What it costs
Prices and limits below read from the live plan configuration, so this page cannot drift from what your account gets.
| Plan | Price | Questions | Scans |
|---|---|---|---|
| Track | Free | 5 | 1/mo |
| Fix | $99/mo | 10 | 4/mo |
| Dominate | $499/mo | 25 | 4/mo |
Rule is portfolio level and sales-assisted, which is where the human relationships this layer needs actually live.
See where you stand first
Run a free scan and find out which of these gaps you actually have.
Get your free auditFrequently asked questions
Do you build the links or pitch on my behalf?
Neither, and the page says so above rather than in the small print. We identify the off-domain gaps your own scan evidences, verify the ones you close, and write the material that gives somebody a reason to cite you. Pitching is a relationship, and we do not have yours.
Why do backlinks matter for AI and not just Google?
Because engines corroborate. A claim on your own site has one source behind it, and a claim several independent places repeat is safe to put in an answer. Breadth across trusted sources is the signal, which is why brands on four or more platforms are cited far more often.
Do nofollow links still help?
For AI visibility, yes, and this catches SEO-trained teams out. Nofollow instructs a ranking system about link equity. A system reading the page to answer a question reads the sentence about you either way. Judge a placement by what a reader learns, not by the attribute.
Which review platforms matter most?
It depends on your category, and the difference is large. G2 carries substantial weight for software queries; Clutch is the disproportionate one for services, consulting and agencies. The scan tells you which sources the engines actually cited for your questions.
Can I buy reviews to speed this up?
No, and we will not help. Fabricated reviews violate platform terms, are unlawful in several places, and get wiped along with the legitimate ones around them. Ask real clients at project close, on the platform that matters for your category.
Are directory submission services worth paying for?
Only for long-tail grunt work, and only after the high-value listings are done properly by hand. Bulk submissions to low-quality directories build a spam footprint and corroborate nothing, because nothing on those pages describes your firm.
Sources and further reading
- Kevin Indig, 30k-citation study (via G2): G2 holds ~22.4% share of voice for software queries; 10% more reviews correlates with ~2% more AI citations.
- G2 2026 AI Search Insight Report: 51% of B2B software buyers begin research on an AI chatbot more often than Google; 69% chose a different vendor than planned based on AI guidance.
Related solutions