RecoProof
Run check
Menu
Planning framework

Competitor Set Design for AI Visibility

Plan competitor set design with explicit inputs, evidence requirements, failure modes, metrics, and a reviewable workflow.

Run a free AI visibility audit Review the methodology
Direct answer

What this workflow should accomplish

Competitor Set Design gives teams choosing which vendors to compare in an audit a controlled input for AI visibility measurement instead of relying on ad hoc prompts or screenshots.

The result is a bounded measurement for a defined question set and collection period. It does not establish a universal ranking, guarantee future inclusion, or prove why a model produced an answer.

The problem

Why a generic visibility score is insufficient

internal rivals, search rivals, and AI-answer rivals may not be the same set.

Keep the full evidence trail so a reviewer can distinguish absence, mention, recommendation, citation, and description accuracy.

Who this is for

teams choosing which vendors to compare in an audit

Use this playbook when the result will change a content, positioning, measurement, reporting, or go-to-market decision. Assign an owner before collection begins and agree on what evidence would justify action.

Question design

Start with a decision-shaped question

“Which alternatives actually appear for the controlled buyer questions, including adjacent categories?”

Evidence to retain

declared competitors, observed competitors, category fit, buyer overlap, and exclusion reason.

Interpretation boundary

a narrow hand-picked set can overstate share while missing the vendor that wins the answer.

Five-step workflow

Move from scope to a reviewable retest

  1. 01

    Define the decision and audience

    Define the decision and audience: teams choosing which vendors to compare in an audit.

  2. 02

    Build a controlled question set. Start with

    Build a controlled question set. Start with: “Which alternatives actually appear for the controlled buyer questions, including adjacent categories?”

  3. 03

    Retain declared competitors, observed competitors, category fit, buyer overlap, and exclusion reason.

    Retain declared competitors, observed competitors, category fit, buyer overlap, and exclusion reason.

  4. 04

    Review the main failure mode

    Review the main failure mode: a narrow hand-picked set can overstate share while missing the vendor that wins the answer.

  5. 05

    Turn the finding into a test

    Turn the finding into a test: retain a declared set and add observed competitors through a documented review rule.

Primary metric

eligible observations covered by the reviewed competitor set

Publish the numerator, denominator, eligible question set, providers, collection dates, and exclusions beside the result. A score without its measurement contract is difficult to compare or audit.

Recommended next action

Turn the observation into a test

retain a declared set and add observed competitors through a documented review rule.

Record the observation, hypothesis, planned change, owner, expected mechanism, and retest condition separately. This keeps the report honest when evidence is incomplete.

FAQ

Questions to resolve before acting

What should Competitor Set Design measurement include?

At minimum, keep declared competitors, observed competitors, category fit, buyer overlap, and exclusion reason. The result should remain traceable to the exact question and collection conditions.

What is the main interpretation risk?

a narrow hand-picked set can overstate share while missing the vendor that wins the answer. Treat observed answers as bounded evidence, not proof of a universal ranking or a hidden model cause.

Which metric should the team review first?

Start with eligible observations covered by the reviewed competitor set. Keep its numerator, denominator, eligible question set, and collection period visible beside the result.