Nobody can answer that from outside your site with a single check, because answers vary by prompt, user and day. What you can audit is whether you have shipped the signals citation depends on: a resolvable entity, a complete schema graph, answer-first structure, a real freshness cadence, comparison content, and mentions you did not write.
This is a weighted self-assessment of signals that make a page extractable and a business resolvable. It scores what you tell it about your own site. It does not query any answer engine, it does not crawl anything, and it cannot tell you whether you are currently being cited.
Not reliably, and any tool that claims a definitive yes or no is overselling. Answer engines are non-deterministic: the same prompt produces different sources on different days, for different users, in different regions, at different model versions. A single query result is an anecdote, not a measurement. What you can do is ask each engine your real buying questions repeatedly, log which sources it returns, and watch that set change over months. That is the honest version of tracking, and it is slow. What you can do today, in five minutes, is audit whether you have shipped the things citation mechanically depends on. That is what this tool does. It is a preparation audit, not a detection tool, and it says so rather than implying otherwise.
Entity signals, at a weight of 20: can a machine resolve your business to one consistent thing? Conflicting names and addresses across the web make you ambiguous, and ambiguity is a cheap reason to drop you. Schema completeness, also 20: is what your pages are declared, or must it be inferred? Structured data does not buy a citation, but its absence forces guessing. Answer-first structure, also 20: can a single block of your page be quoted without the paragraph above it? Answer engines extract passages, so a passage that depends on context cannot travel. Comparison and decision content, 13: have you published prices, comparisons and objections? Most high-intent questions are comparative, and silence removes you from the answer entirely. Earned mentions, 15: does anyone other than you describe what you do? This is the only dimension you cannot ship from your own CMS, which is exactly why it carries weight. Freshness cadence, 12: is there a visible, honest last-updated date and a real review rhythm behind it? A stale page with a 2026 date in the title is worse than an undated one.
Because we had to choose, and choosing in public is better than choosing in private. The weights are editorial judgement about leverage, not a measured coefficient from a study, and printing them lets you re-weight them for your own situation. Entity, schema and structure carry the most because they are mechanical, they are entirely within your control, and their absence is disqualifying rather than merely unhelpful. A business that cannot be resolved to one entity, whose pages declare nothing, and whose answers are buried in preamble, has three independent reasons to be skipped. Earned mentions is weighted meaningfully but not highest, because it is the slowest to move. Weighting it at 30 would produce a score most readers could not act on, and a score you cannot act on is a vanity metric. Freshness is the lowest weight because it is necessary and cheap rather than differentiating. Everyone can add a date. Very few maintain a cadence behind it, which is why the audit asks about the cadence and not the date.
Follow the fix list the tool generates, which is ordered by weight lost rather than by effort. But three fixes recur so often they are worth stating up front. First, publish a price. A range you can defend removes you from the largest single category of high-intent questions you are currently absent from, and it takes an afternoon. Second, rewrite the opening paragraph of your five most important pages as a self-contained 40-to-60-word answer to the question in the title. This is the highest ratio of effect to effort in the entire audit. Third, ship one connected schema graph rather than three disconnected blocks. Organization, LocalBusiness and Service nodes with real @id cross-references, generated once and pasted in. The generator on this site produces exactly that.
A search engine ranks documents so a person can choose one. An answer engine assembles an answer and cites the sources it used. Those are different jobs and they reward different work. Classic SEO optimises for the click: title tags that earn a click, internal links that concentrate authority, page speed that protects the click once earned. All of that still matters, because most answer engines still lean on a conventional index underneath. Answer-engine work optimises for extraction and attribution: can a passage be lifted cleanly, is the claim inside it self-contained, is the entity behind it resolvable, and is there corroboration elsewhere that you are who you say you are. A page can rank third and never be quoted, and a page can be quoted constantly while sitting outside the top ten. The practical overlap is large, which is good news. Almost nothing in this audit hurts conventional rankings, and several items help both.
No, deliberately. A single query result from a non-deterministic, personalised system is an anecdote, not a measurement. This is a self-audit of the signals citation depends on, and it says so rather than selling a detection capability that does not exist.
Anything above 75 means the mechanical blockers are cleared and your remaining constraint is content and mentions. Below 45 usually means one whole dimension is missing entirely, most often schema or comparison content, and that is the fastest thing to fix.
No. It removes the mechanical reasons you would be excluded from consideration. Citation still depends on whether what you published is genuinely the best available answer, and no audit can score that.
Longer than you want and less predictably than in conventional search, because it depends on recrawl, index refresh and model behaviour that no one outside those companies can see. Treat it as a quarterly horizon, not a weekly one.