Which channel to fund first, and the evidence behind the answer.
Your buyers now build their shortlist inside ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews, before they ever reach your site. This audit measures what those assistants say about your category, maps the sources they read to say it, finds the search openings you already half-own, and ends with one recommendation you can act on: the channel to fund first, and why.
Scope is settled before you pay, on a short call or by email, so you know exactly what you are buying. If the audit is the wrong purchase for you, we say so first.
Which of Reddit, X, LinkedIn or email to fund first for your category, with the evidence that led there and the reason the others wait.
The things to change, ordered by hand with the reasoning printed beside each one, and tagged client-side, one-off or retainer.
What moving this actually looks like on your timeline, stated before you spend, including where it is slow.
Six deliverables. The document is short on purpose: a long report is a way of not deciding.
20 questions in five groups (category, comparison, problem, direct brand, buying criteria), written the way your buyers talk to an assistant rather than the way keywords look. It is yours to keep and re-run for as long as the surfaces exist, whether or not you work with us.
The panel run across ChatGPT with search, Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews, in fresh sessions inside a single 48-hour window, with country and language pinned and stated. You get your mention rate, your first-mention rate and your share of all brand mentions against three to five named competitors, with the denominator printed beside every number. Questions where a surface returns no AI answer are recorded as no-answer and still counted.
Every domain and URL the assistants cited across the panel, ranked by frequency, tagged by type, with the specific pages and threads carrying each competitor's mentions. It is the shortest honest description of where your category's evidence actually lives, and it is the part that survives longest, because sources move more slowly than answers.
AI crawler access checked bot by bot, server-rendered versus JavaScript-only content, llms.txt presence and factual accuracy, schema coverage and validation, and whether your headings are shaped so an assistant can quote them. Covers sites up to 250 crawled pages; larger sites are quoted before you pay.
Four countable kinds of opening: keywords you already rank 4 to 20 for on pages that already exist, gaps where competitors rank and you do not, panel questions with no answer-shaped page behind them, and the community threads worth answering. Every volume figure is labelled a third-party estimate and carries its source and date.
One channel to fund first, the fixes ranked by hand with the reasoning printed next to each one, what to expect in 90 days, and what not to buy. Behind it: both answer tables as CSV, the archived text of every recorded answer, the frozen panel file and the itemised cost of the data used.
Printed here rather than buried in the report, because the limits are how you tell a measurement apart from a pitch.
The site-readability half of this audit has already been run on our own domain: the scores, the fixes applied and what is still open are on the proof page, unflattering parts included. Our own buyer-question panel is not published yet. When it is, it lands there too.
The measurement half is not a secret. Our 60-minute DIY procedure is free and complete, and if that is all you need, take it. This exists for teams who want the sources ranked, the site checked and the decision made.
A tool hands you a dashboard and leaves the interpretation to you, which is fine if interpretation is the part you already have. If a dashboard is all you need, buy the dashboard: it costs less than this and we will tell you so on the call. What this adds is the part a dashboard cannot: the cited sources ranked by whether you can realistically win them, the fixes ordered by hand with the reasoning printed next to each one, and a single channel recommendation. The panel is yours afterwards, so you can keep measuring without paying anyone.
RouterGrowth launched in August 2026, so the honest answer is that this is a new product and you would be early. Rather than dress that up, the method is published instead of described. The site-readability half has already been run on our own domain, and the scores, the fixes and what is still open are on the proof page. The measurement half is written out step by step in our free DIY guide, which is the same procedure we run for you, with the tooling and the competitor scoring added. Being an early client of a new firm is a real trade: you get the founder's full attention and a method you can check line by line, and you do not get a decade of pattern recognition. Both halves of that are true.
Yes, against your first retainer invoice if you start within 90 days, and it is not a discount on the retainer. The frozen panel becomes the first month's AI share-of-voice report and the triaged thread list becomes the first month's target list, so crediting the fee stops you paying twice for the same artifacts. If the audit concludes RouterGrowth is not your lever, there is nothing to credit and the memo says so in writing.
Then it says that, in writing, with the reasoning. Every item in the plan is tagged client-side, one-off or retainer, and the client-side ones are not softened to make a retainer look necessary. Categories exist where the assistants read review sites and documentation rather than communities, and in those the honest recommendation is not our Reddit engine.
Ten business days from the intake. Two audits a month, so the work does not queue behind retainer clients. If the memo lands late, the fee is refunded and you keep the report.
ChatGPT with search, Perplexity, and Google's AI Overviews, with the country and language pinned and stated in the report. Each question is run once per surface unless the report says otherwise, and the sample size is printed rather than implied.
Do not sequence them, because the inputs overlap. Citable structure, clean pages and credible third-party mentions serve both, which is why the search opportunity list sits in the same document as the AI answers. If the audit finds that a technical blocker is the whole story, it says so on page one and the rest gets cheaper.
Two audits a month, so the work never queues behind retainer clients. If the memo lands late, the fee is refunded and you keep the report. If you hire us afterwards, the fee comes off your first retainer invoice.
Prefer email? Send your site and competitors to hello@routergrowth.com.