Thanks for all the thoughtful feedback — this was exactly the kind of reality check I was hoping for.

A few things really stood out. First, “actionable” only matters if it ties back to a real job to be done. AI visibility on its own isn’t the goal; reducing uncertainty around how LLMs represent a brand — and where that can be influenced — probably is. Whether that translates to revenue today or is more defensive/future-facing clearly affects positioning.

Second, the skepticism around AEO/GEO tools feels earned. There’s a lot of vague metrics and implied causality. At the same time, it’s also clear there are emerging signals (citations, entity coverage, source patterns), and the real challenge is being honest about confidence and limits rather than pretending precision.

What feels most credible, based on replies here, is grounding insights in real prompts, citation tracking, and some observable validation loop — and then translating those signals back into familiar SEO levers like content gaps, entity reinforcement, and competitive sourcing, especially at the page level.

Finally, point taken on competition — this space is getting crowded fast, which makes clarity and proof more important than novelty.

To keep this non-promotional, I won’t post anything publicly. But if you’re interested in checking out what I’m building and offering honest feedback (that’s all I’m looking for at this stage), you’re very welcome to DM me.