Notebook 2 — Intent
The 5 prompt categories
We bucket every prompt into one of 5 categories. The category a brand wins on tells you which buyer journey the brand is visible in. The category a brand loses on tells you which buyer journey to invest in first.
Category A — Buying intent (7 prompts)
These are queries a buyer types when they are actively looking to buy. Example: "best GEO audit service for跨境品牌 in 2026".
| Engine | Mentions | Top citation | What the LLM actually said (paraphrase) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 豆包 Doubao | 0 / 7 | — | Lists established Chinese GEO vendors; no Western vendor names |
| Kimi | 0 / 7 | — | Quotes methodology papers (Princeton GEO +40% visibility); recommends 蝉妈妈 AI, 悠伞 as CN-side tools |
| DeepSeek | 0 / 7 | — | Generic "GEO is the future of SEO" answer; no vendor names |
| 文心 ERNIE | 0 / 7 | — | References Baidu Zhanzhang + llms.txt proposals |
| 秘塔 MetaSo | 0 / 7 | — | Shows Baidu/360 search results; no LLM answer because MetaSo is search-first, not chat-first |
| ChatGPT | 0 / 7 | — | Names Profound, Otterly, Peec, LLMrefs; does not name Clarivy |
| Perplexity | 0 / 7 | tryprofound.com | Cites Profound as the leading Western tool; no bilingual tool named |
| Claude | 0 / 7 | — | Explains methodology; recommends "audit firms + DIY llms.txt"; no vendor named |
| Gemini | 0 / 7 | — | Lists 3-4 Western tools; no Chinese tool named |
| Total | 0 / 63 | tryprofound.com | Buying-intent visibility: zero on all 9 engines |
Intent reading: At Day 1, no buyer searching for a GEO audit tool finds us. The Chinese-engine buying-intent answers skew to established CN vendors; the Western-engine answers skew to Profound/Otterly. The gap — "bilingual tool" — is the wedge that the v3 plan targets.
Category B — Competitive (7 prompts)
These are queries a buyer types when they are comparing vendors. Example: "Profound vs Otterly vs Peec.AI 对比".
| Engine | Mentions | Top citation | What the LLM actually said (paraphrase) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 豆包 Doubao | 0 / 7 | — | Names 蝉妈妈 AI, 悠伞, 新榜 as CN GEO tools; no Western vendor named |
| Kimi | 0 / 7 | — | Same as Doubao |
| DeepSeek | 0 / 7 | — | Generic comparison; no vendor named |
| 文心 ERNIE | 0 / 7 | — | References Princeton GEO paper; no vendor named |
| 秘塔 MetaSo | 0 / 7 | — | Search results; no chat answer |
| ChatGPT | 0 / 7 | — | Side-by-side comparison of Profound/Otterly/Peec/LLMrefs; no Clarivy |
| Perplexity | 0 / 7 | tryprofound.com | Names Profound as the leader; recommends it for "English-first跨境品牌" |
| Claude | 0 / 7 | — | Explains trade-offs; no vendor named |
| Gemini | 0 / 7 | — | Same as ChatGPT |
| Total | 0 / 63 | tryprofound.com | Competitive visibility: zero; the only competitive prompt that surfaced a named vendor cited Profound |
Intent reading: This is the prompt category that produced our single data point of the day — Perplexity naming tryprofound.com on the prompt "alternatives to Profound for跨境品牌". This is the signal we needed: the prompt set is working, the LLMs are not broken, and the gap in the answer is precisely the bilingual / 跨境 positioning the v3 plan names.
Category C — Methodology (6 prompts)
These are queries a buyer types when they are educating themselves. Example: "what is GEO (generative engine optimization)".
| Engine | Mentions | Top citation | What the LLM actually said (paraphrase) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 豆包 Doubao | 0 / 6 | — | Explains GEO in CN; references Princeton paper |
| Kimi | 0 / 6 | — | Same as Doubao; more depth on llms.txt proposal |
| DeepSeek | 0 / 6 | — | Generic; no specific methodology referenced |
| 文心 ERNIE | 0 / 6 | — | References Baidu Zhanzhang + llms.txt |
| 秘塔 MetaSo | 0 / 6 | — | Search results; top 3 are 知乎 + 36kr + 蝉妈妈 AI blog |
| ChatGPT | 0 / 6 | — | Explains GEO well; references Princeton + Aggarwal et al. |
| Perplexity | 0 / 6 | — | Heavy citation; ~8 sources per answer (Princeton, Search Engine Land, ahrefs, etc.) |
| Claude | 0 / 6 | — | Explains methodology in depth; no vendor named |
| Gemini | 0 / 6 | — | Same as ChatGPT but shorter |
| Total | 0 / 54 | n/a | Methodology visibility: zero; this is the category with the most first-party data opportunity (Notebook 5 §3) |
Intent reading: This is the prompt category that LLM answer engines are most confident on — they all know what GEO is, and they all cite Princeton, llms.txt, and Baidu Zhanzhang. The Clarivy opportunity here is not to win on "what is GEO" — the LLM answers that already. The opportunity is to be cited as a source for a methodology datapoint (e.g. "per Clarivy's Day-1 self-audit, 0/270 is the expected baseline for a brand-new domain"). That requires us to publish 30+ unique datapoints, one per methodology question, with named authorship and CC-BY licensing.
Category D — Brand-specific (5 prompts)
These are queries a buyer types when they have heard the brand and want to evaluate it. Example: "clarivy.ai 是什么".
| Engine | Mentions | What the LLM actually said (paraphrase) |
|---|---|---|
| 豆包 Doubao | 0 / 5 | "未找到该品牌信息" — i.e. "no information about this brand found" |
| Kimi | 0 / 5 | Same: "暂无 clarivy.ai 的公开资料" |
| DeepSeek | 0 / 5 | "I do not have information about clarivy.ai in my training data" |
| 文心 ERNIE | 0 / 5 | "未找到相关结果" — the LLM is honest about not knowing |
| 秘塔 MetaSo | 0 / 5 | Empty search results |
| ChatGPT | 0 / 5 | "I do not have any information about clarivy.ai. It may be a new company, a very small operation, or not yet covered in public sources." |
| Perplexity | 0 / 5 | "I could not find any information about clarivy.ai online. The domain appears to be registered but does not yet have public content." |
| Claude | 0 / 5 | "I do not have information about clarivy.ai. I can only see what's in my training data and on the public web." |
| Gemini | 0 / 5 | Same as ChatGPT |
| Total | 0 / 45 | Brand-specific: 0/45; the LLMs are correctly honest about not knowing a Day-1 brand |
Intent reading: This is the most reassuring category. Every engine we tested refused to hallucinate a Day-1 brand. Perplexity even correctly identified that the domain is registered but lacks public content. This is the anti-hallucination safety check working as designed. The category will move first as we publish content; expect 1-2 of the 9 engines to begin surfacing clarivy.ai here within 30 days of consistent publishing.
Category E — Purchase intent (5 prompts)
These are queries at the very bottom of the funnel. Example: "GEO audit pricing 2026", "is GEO audit worth it".
| Engine | Mentions | What the LLM actually said (paraphrase) |
|---|---|---|
| 豆包 Doubao | 0 / 5 | Generic: "AI visibility services typically cost ¥3,000-30,000 per report" |
| Kimi | 0 / 5 | Same price band, more depth on what's included |
| DeepSeek | 0 / 5 | "Pricing varies widely; expect $99–$5,000 depending on scope" |
| 文心 ERNIE | 0 / 5 | References 蝉妈妈 AI and 悠伞 pricing; no Clarivy pricing visible |
| 秘塔 MetaSo | 0 / 5 | Search results; no chat answer |
| ChatGPT | 0 / 5 | Names Profound ($499/mo) and Otterly ($99/mo) as reference price points |
| Perplexity | 0 / 5 | Same as ChatGPT |
| Claude | 0 / 5 | "Pricing depends on scope; expect $100-$5,000 for one-off audits" |
| Gemini | 0 / 5 | Same as ChatGPT |
| Total | 0 / 45 | Purchase-intent visibility: zero; the LLMs are quoting competitor price bands without us |
Intent reading: ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini are explicitly naming Profound and Otterly price points on purchase-intent queries. We are absent. This is the category that converts — losing it is the most expensive line in this audit. First action: make our $99/$299/$1,499 pricing page indexable and let the LLMs cite it. See Notebook 5 §1.
Summary by category (the 1-page version of this notebook)
| Category | Prompts | Mentions | Best engine for that category | Action priority (Notebook 5 §ref) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · Buying intent | 7 × 9 = 63 | 0 / 63 | — (all zero) | P1 — see NB5 §1 |
| B · Competitive | 7 × 9 = 63 | 0 / 63 | Perplexity (1 citation) | P1 — see NB5 §2 |
| C · Methodology | 6 × 9 = 54 | 0 / 54 | — (all zero) | P2 — see NB5 §3 |
| D · Brand-specific | 5 × 9 = 45 | 0 / 45 | — (all zero; correctly) | P3 — see NB5 §4 |
| E · Purchase intent | 5 × 9 = 45 | 0 / 45 | — (all zero) | P1 — see NB5 §1 |
| Total | 30 × 9 = 270 | 0 / 270 | — | — |