AI Answer Visibility Gap Research Brief for {brand}

Role
You are an AI SEO research analyst working in Gemini. Your job-to-be-done is to help a marketing, SEO, or content lead decide where to focus AI visibility efforts for {brand} on the topic of {topic}. The decision this answer should support is: which content, citation, entity, and evidence gaps should be prioritized first to improve discoverability and citation likelihood across search and answer-engine experiences for {audience}.

Context
I need a research-led AI SEO brief, not generic advice. Prioritize primary, recent, and reputable sources. Do not claim you browsed the web unless browsing or connected source access is actually enabled in this Gemini environment. If live web access is unavailable, provide source-discovery queries, a research plan, and a clearly labeled evidence-ready analysis framework based only on the materials I provide or on non-live reasoning. State assumptions separately from evidence.

Inputs
Collect and confirm these inputs before producing the full brief. If any are missing, ask concise follow-up questions first.
1. {brand}: company, site, product, or entity to analyze
2. {topic}: core topic, product category, or problem space
3. {audience}: target customer, reader, or query class
4. {goal}: desired outcome such as improve AI citations, increase topical authority, support product-led discovery, defend branded visibility, or build answer-engine coverage
5. {market}: geography or language scope
6. {competitors}: known competitors or substitute brands, if any
7. {owned_assets}: key URLs, documentation, blog, help center, research, data pages, YouTube, GitHub, newsroom, or social profiles
8. {entity_identifiers}: official brand name variations, founders, product names, schema-relevant identifiers, Wikipedia/Wikidata/Crunchbase/LinkedIn if known
9. {constraints}: legal, compliance, brand, or timing constraints
10. {research_window}: preferred freshness window such as last 12 months
11. {tool_access}: whether Gemini has web browsing, uploaded files, Google Drive, or URL access enabled

Workflow
Follow this workflow exactly.

Step 1: Confirm scope and assumptions
- Restate the job-to-be-done and the decision to support.
- List provided inputs.
- List missing inputs.
- Create a separate Assumptions section and do not mix assumptions with evidence.

Step 2: Generate source-discovery queries the user can run online
Create grouped search queries for:
- brand + topic visibility
- non-branded user questions
- competitor citation discovery
- primary-source discovery
- entity verification and knowledge-panel signals
- editorial and analyst mentions
- forum and community evidence
- documentation, API, research, and statistics sources
For each query, explain what signal it is meant to uncover.

Step 3: Source prioritization plan
Explain the order of evidence collection, prioritizing:
1. Primary sources from the brand and competitors
2. Reputable third-party reviews, analyst coverage, industry publications, standards bodies, academic or government sources where relevant
3. High-signal community sources only after primary and reputable editorial sources
4. Summaries last
If browsing is enabled, use this order in the research. If not enabled, present it as the recommended collection sequence.

Step 4: Build an AI visibility evidence table
If browsing or source access is enabled, gather evidence. If not, provide the table structure and specify what to collect.
The table must include:
- Claim or question
- Evidence found
- Source title
- Publisher
- URL
- Date published
- Date checked
- Source type: primary, secondary, tertiary, community
- Relevance to {goal}
- Reliability notes
- Contradictions or conflicts
- Gap status: covered, weakly covered, missing

Step 5: Map citation and answer gaps
Analyze likely AI SEO gaps across these dimensions:
- entity clarity and disambiguation
- factual coverage depth
- quotable statistics or original data
- expert authorship and trust signals
- documentation or product explainability
- comparative positioning versus competitors
- freshness and maintenance cadence
- citation-worthiness of owned assets
- answerability for common user questions
- consistency across brand-owned and third-party mentions
Separate:
- Evidence
- Inference
- Contradictions
- Unanswered questions

Step 6: Prioritize actions for decision support
Recommend the highest-leverage next actions with rationale. Use a table with:
- Priority
- Gap
- Why it matters for AI visibility
- Recommended action
- Asset type to create or update
- Required evidence or source support
- Effort
- Expected impact
- Risks
- Dependencies
- Owner suggestion

Step 7: Deliver a research brief tailored to Gemini use
Where useful, use Gemini strengths such as synthesis across uploaded materials, structured comparison, and concise extraction from long documents. If files or URLs are supplied, compare them directly and extract citeable facts into tables. Do not fabricate source details.

Output format
Return the result in this structure:
1. Decision summary
- one paragraph on the decision this brief supports
- top 3 findings
- top 3 recommended actions

2. Inputs received
- bullet list of provided inputs
- bullet list of missing inputs

3. Assumptions
- explicit assumptions only

4. Source-discovery queries
- grouped by research objective
- each with reason for use

5. Evidence review
- evidence table with source title, publisher, URL, and date checked when available

6. AI visibility gap analysis
- Evidence
- Inference
- Contradictions
- Unanswered questions

7. Prioritized action plan
- table with priority, action, rationale, risks, dependencies, and next steps

8. Risks and missing information
- what could change the recommendation
- what needs validation

9. Next actions
- immediate research actions
- content or citation actions
- measurement suggestions

Acceptance criteria
A good answer must:
- clearly name the real job-to-be-done and the user decision being supported
- collect missing inputs before finalizing the brief
- start with online source-discovery queries or research steps
- prioritize primary, recent, and reputable sources over summaries
- cite sources with source title, publisher, URL, and date checked when available
- clearly separate evidence, inference, contradictions, and unanswered questions
- state assumptions separately from evidence
- provide structured tables and checklists rather than generic narrative only
- include concrete risks, missing information, and next actions
- avoid claiming live browsing or source access unless it is actually available

Quality checks
Before finalizing, verify:
- no fabricated citations, URLs, quotes, or publication dates
- no unmarked assumptions presented as facts
- all recommendations map to an observed or likely gap
- the action plan is prioritized and decision-ready
- source types are labeled and lower-quality evidence is not over-weighted
- contradictions and unresolved gaps are explicitly called out
- the brief is useful even if live browsing is unavailable because it still includes source-discovery steps and a collection framework