Three acronyms. What work actually changes?

Name the work before buying it

Google’s generative AI optimization guide explicitly keeps SEO relevant. It does not require a special AI text file, a particular word count or tiny content chunks. That guidance applies to Google Search; it is not a contract covering every assistant.

Separate training from retrieval as well. A system can retrieve a recent web page when answering a question. Training is a different process. A request to “let all AI bots in” is too vague to approve: identify the crawler, the purpose and the pages involved.

Clear the technical obstacles once

• Make important public pages available without a login or a challenge that blocks the intended crawler. Test the response, not just robots.txt.
• Use one canonical URL for each page. Link to it from a relevant public page and include it in the sitemap.
• Put the main explanation in readable page text. Keep navigation, headings and tables usable on a phone and with a keyboard.
• Use structured data that describes what the visitor can actually see. Do not add invented ratings, authors or questions to attract a richer result.

For Google specifically, also check the Search generative AI control in Search Console. Inclusion is the default, but a property can inherit an exclusion from its parent. This control is separate from training preferences.

These are inspectable maintenance tasks. Completion does not mean the page has earned a recommendation. Think of a technically valid page that still avoids every awkward question a buyer has: the missing work is editorial.

Turn one unanswered question into a page brief

Take a fictional payroll provider whose prospects ask whether they can switch halfway through the year. A generic page about “seamless onboarding” does not resolve that decision. A useful resource could show the migration sequence, who supplies the historical records, what gets checked and which cases need extra preparation.

Notice what the brief does not require: ten variations of “best mid-year payroll migration” or an unsupported claim that switching takes exactly 48 hours. It needs someone with the facts to explain the job properly.

The same principle applies to pricing, comparisons and case studies. Show assumptions, limits and evidence a buyer could not get from a paragraph of category-level advice. If an excellent explanation already exists, improve its discoverability or fix the conflicting source instead of writing a duplicate.

Your website is only part of the evidence

Inspect the pages cited in answers where competitors are recommended. A comparison, directory or discussion may reveal a concern your own page misses. Check its date, ownership and relevance before deciding it deserves attention.

A genuinely relevant directory profile can be worth correcting. A factual error in a review may deserve a documented correction request. A community question can merit a helpful response when participation is allowed and any affiliation is clear. None of that requires manufactured praise or pretending to be a customer.

A citation tells you a page was referenced in that answer. It does not prove that buying a listing there will change future recommendations. Our improvement guide shows how to turn a source observation into a testable action rather than a placement shopping list.

Ask for the evidence trail

Before work starts, save the buying questions, the answers, the relevant page versions and the decision you want to help. After the change, repeat a comparable check. Keep visibility, site visits and qualified enquiries as separate measurements.

A good supplier can explain what changed, why it was worth doing and what remains uncertain. If the only deliverable is a higher proprietary score, you are still missing the part that tells you whether the work was useful.