` tags) - Preserve heading context (which H2/H3 section each paragraph belongs to) - Number each paragraph for reference - Count total words, sentences, and paragraphs Print a brief summary: ``` Content Analysis: {title or domain} Words: {count} Paragraphs: {count} Headings: {count} Scanning for citability issues... ``` --- ## Phase 2: Paragraph-Level Diagnosis Scan every paragraph for these 6 issue categories: ### 2.1 Hedge Language Hedge words reduce AI citation probability because AI engines prefer authoritative, confident statements. **Hedge word categories:** | Category | Examples | Severity | |----------|----------|----------| | Uncertainty | maybe, perhaps, possibly, might, could | High | | Qualification | somewhat, relatively, fairly, rather, quite | Medium | | Approximation | about, around, approximately, roughly, nearly | Medium | | Distancing | seems, appears, tends to, suggests, likely | High | | Generalization | generally, usually, often, sometimes, typically | Medium | | Weakening | a bit, sort of, kind of, in some ways | High | **Metrics:** - **Hedge Density** = (hedge word count / total word count) * 100 - Target: < 0.5% for high-citability content - Critical: > 2.0% indicates systematically weak language ### 2.2 Missing Data Support Paragraphs that make claims without evidence: - Statements with "better", "faster", "more" without numbers - Comparisons without baselines - Claims about impact without metrics - Trends stated without timeframes or sources ### 2.3 Missing Definitions Technical terms or jargon used without explanation: - Acronyms not expanded at first use - Industry terms assumed known - Concepts referenced without context ### 2.4 Poor Self-Containment Paragraphs that cannot stand alone: - Starts with "This", "It", "They" without clear antecedent - Requires reading previous paragraphs to understand - References "as mentioned above" or "as we discussed" - Depends on surrounding context for meaning ### 2.5 Structural Issues - Paragraphs longer than 4 sentences (AI prefers 2-3 sentence blocks) - Content that should be a list or table but is written as prose - Wall of text without visual breaks - Missing topic sentence (first sentence doesn't summarize the paragraph) ### 2.6 Weak Answer Blocks Content that could serve as a direct AI answer but doesn't: - Questions in headings without direct answers in the first sentence - Definition opportunities missed ("{Term} is..." pattern absent) - FAQ content buried in prose instead of Q&A format ### Diagnosis Output For each paragraph with issues, record: ``` Paragraph {n} (line {x}): {first 10 words}... Issues: - [HEDGE] 3 hedge words (density: 2.1%) - [DATA] Claim without metrics: "significantly improves..." - [SELF] Starts with "This" — unclear antecedent Severity: HIGH ``` --- ## Phase 3: Rewrite For each paragraph with issues, generate a rewrite following these rules: ### 3.1 Rewrite Principles 1. **Preserve original meaning** — Never change what the author is saying, only how they say it 2. **Replace hedge with certainty** — "might help" → "reduces costs by X%" 3. **Add data placeholders** — If real data is unknown, use `[TODO: add specific metric]` 4. **Front-load the answer** — Put the key claim in the first sentence 5. **Make self-contained** — Each paragraph should be quotable in isolation 6. **Keep it concise** — 2-3 sentences per paragraph, maximum 4 ### 3.2 Rewrite Format For each rewritten paragraph: ```markdown ### Paragraph {n} (line {x}) **Issues**: {comma-separated issue list} **Before**: > {Original paragraph text} **After**: > {Rewritten paragraph text} **Changes**: - {What was changed and why} - {What was changed and why} **Platform impact**: {Which AI platform benefits most from this rewrite and why} ``` ### 3.3 AI Platform Citation Preferences Different AI platforms have different citation biases. When generating rewrites, tag each rewrite with the platform that benefits most: | Platform | Favors | Rewrite Implication | |----------|--------|-------------------| | **ChatGPT** | Authority, named sources, expert quotes | Rewrites adding expert attribution or named citations → tag "ChatGPT" | | **Perplexity** | Freshness, data recency, community signals | Rewrites adding dates, "as of [year]", recent statistics → tag "Perplexity" | | **Gemini** | Brand-site content, structured data context | Rewrites improving brand name consistency and self-containment → tag "Gemini" | | **Google AI Overviews** | Structured answers, tables, lists, FAQ patterns | Rewrites converting prose to tables/lists or adding Q&A format → tag "Google AIO" | | **Claude** | Primary sources, original data, cited statistics | Rewrites adding first-party data or specific research citations → tag "Claude" | When a rewrite benefits multiple platforms, list the primary one. Example: ``` **Platform impact**: Perplexity (added 2025 data with source — strong freshness signal) ``` ### 3.4 Rewrite Patterns **Hedge → Confident:** - "might help" → "helps" or "reduces X by Y%" - "seems to indicate" → "indicates" or "shows that" - "could potentially improve" → "improves" - "is generally considered" → "is" - "in some cases" → "[specific condition]" **Vague → Specific:** - "significantly improves" → "improves by 34%" - "many customers" → "2,500+ customers" or "[TODO: customer count]" - "recently" → "in Q1 2026" or "[TODO: specific date]" - "industry-leading" → "[TODO: specific benchmark or ranking]" **Dependent → Self-Contained:** - "This helps..." → "{Product Name} helps..." - "It works by..." → "{Feature Name} works by..." - "As mentioned above..." → Remove, restate the key fact **Prose → Structure:** - Lists of 3+ items → Bullet list or table - Comparisons → Table with columns - Sequential steps → Numbered list - Features with details → Table (Feature | Description | Benefit) ### 3.5 Skip Rules Do NOT rewrite paragraphs that: - Already score well on all dimensions - Are legal disclaimers or regulatory text - Are direct quotes from named sources - Are code blocks or technical specifications --- ## Phase 4: Output ### 4.1 Generate Fix File Create a file named `content-fix-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md` (or `content-fix-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md` if input was pasted text). Structure: ```markdown # Content Citability Fix: {title} **Source**: {url or "pasted text"} **Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD} **Paragraphs analyzed**: {total} **Issues found**: {count} **Paragraphs rewritten**: {count} ## Citability Score The Overall Citability score uses a simplified version of the geo-audit Content Citability dimension (see `../geo-audit/references/scoring-guide.md` for the full rubric). Each metric maps to a sub-dimension: | Metric | Max Points | Scoring Basis | Before | After (est.) | |--------|-----------|---------------|--------|-------------| | Hedge Density | 20 | < 0.5% = 20, 0.5-1% = 15, 1-2% = 10, > 2% = 5 | {x} | {y} | | Data-Supported Claims | 20 | % of claim paragraphs with quantitative evidence | {x} | {y} | | Self-Contained Paragraphs | 20 | % of paragraphs understandable in isolation | {x} | {y} | | Structural Clarity | 15 | Avg 2-4 sentences/para = 15, >6 = 5; lists/tables used = +bonus | {x} | {y} | | Answer Block Quality | 15 | Count of Q+A, definition, FAQ patterns (0=0, 1-2=8, 3+=15) | {x} | {y} | | Term Definitions | 10 | % of technical terms defined at first use | {x} | {y} | | **Overall Citability** | **100** | **Sum of above** | **{x}/100** | **{y}/100** | **GEO Score impact**: Content Citability carries a 35% weight in the composite GEO Score. Improving this score directly impacts the largest single dimension. ## Issue Summary | Category | Count | Severity | |----------|-------|----------| | Hedge Language | {n} | {avg severity} | | Missing Data | {n} | {avg severity} | | Missing Definitions | {n} | {avg severity} | | Poor Self-Containment | {n} | {avg severity} | | Structural Issues | {n} | {avg severity} | | Weak Answer Blocks | {n} | {avg severity} | ## Rewrites {All paragraph rewrites from Phase 3} ## Full Rewritten Content {Complete content with all rewrites applied, ready to copy-paste} ``` ### 4.2 Print Summary ``` Content Fix: {title or domain} Paragraphs: {total} analyzed, {n} rewritten Hedge Density: {before}% → {after}% (target: < 0.5%) Citability Score: {before}/100 → {after}/100 (estimated) Top issues: 1. {issue description} ({n} instances) 2. {issue description} ({n} instances) 3. {issue description} ({n} instances) Output: content-fix-{domain}-{date}.md ``` --- ## Phase 5: Post-Optimization Validation After generating all rewrites, run a final self-check on the rewritten content. This catches issues that paragraph-level analysis may miss. ### 5.1 Citability Self-Check Verify the rewritten content against these criteria: | # | Check | Pass Criteria | Status | |---|-------|--------------|--------| | 1 | **Direct answer in first 150 words** | The opening paragraph directly answers the page's primary question or states the core value proposition — no preamble | Pass/Fail | | 2 | **Data density** | At least 1 specific statistic or quantitative claim per 300 words (or `[TODO]` placeholder) | Pass/Fail | | 3 | **Citation frequency** | At least 1 named source per 500 words | Pass/Fail | | 4 | **Definition coverage** | All key terms defined at first use (acronyms expanded, jargon explained) | Pass/Fail | | 5 | **Self-containment** | No paragraph starts with unresolved "This", "It", "They" | Pass/Fail | | 6 | **Hedge-free zones** | Zero hedge words in definition blocks, lead paragraphs, and FAQ answers | Pass/Fail | | 7 | **Structural variety** | At least 1 table or comparison list, 1 numbered process, and 1 Q&A block in the full content (where applicable) | Pass/Fail | | 8 | **Freshness signals** | Dates, timeframes, or "as of [year]" present for statistical claims | Pass/Fail | | 9 | **Quotable passages** | At least 3 passages that are self-contained, factual, and under 60 words — ideal for AI extraction | Pass/Fail | | 10 | **No invented data** | All statistics are from the original content or marked `[TODO: add source]` — nothing fabricated | Pass/Fail | ### 5.2 Validation Output Append the check results to the fix report: ```markdown ## Post-Optimization Validation | # | Check | Status | |---|-------|--------| | 1 | Direct answer in first 150 words | {Pass/Fail} | | 2 | Data density (≥1 stat per 300 words) | {Pass/Fail} | | 3 | Citation frequency (≥1 source per 500 words) | {Pass/Fail} | | 4 | Definition coverage | {Pass/Fail} | | 5 | Self-containment (no unresolved pronouns) | {Pass/Fail} | | 6 | Hedge-free zones | {Pass/Fail} | | 7 | Structural variety | {Pass/Fail} | | 8 | Freshness signals | {Pass/Fail} | | 9 | Quotable passages (≥3) | {Pass/Fail} | | 10 | No invented data | {Pass/Fail} | **Result**: {n}/10 passed {If any Fail: list specific items that need attention} ``` If fewer than 7 checks pass, flag the content as **needs additional work** and list the specific failures with fix suggestions. --- ## Error Handling - **URL unreachable**: Report the error and ask user to provide the content as pasted text instead - **No main content extracted**: If the page is mostly navigation/JS with no readable content, report as error and suggest the user paste the text directly - **Content too long (>50 paragraphs)**: Analyze the first 50 paragraphs and suggest the user split the remaining content into a second run - **Non-text content**: Skip images, videos, embedded widgets — only analyze text paragraphs - **Rate limiting**: Wait 1 second between requests when fetching multiple pages - **Timeout**: 30 seconds per URL fetch --- ## Quality Gates 1. **Meaning preservation** — Rewrites must not change the author's intent or claims 2. **Data integrity** — Never invent statistics; use `[TODO: ...]` placeholders for missing data 3. **Tone consistency** — Match the original content's tone (formal/casual/technical) 4. **Language matching** — Rewrite in the same language as the original content 5. **No over-optimization** — Content should still read naturally, not like keyword stuffing 6. **Rate limiting** — 1 second between requests when fetching URLs 7. **Maximum scope** — Analyze up to 50 paragraphs per run; suggest splitting for longer content