diff --git a/docs/SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_PLAN.md b/docs/SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_PLAN.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..036ee3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_PLAN.md
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+# Self-serve “Am I discoverable by AI?” — execution plan
+
+**Branch:** `planning-selfserve-audit` (from `planning-rev2`)  
+**Status:** Working draft — captured from strategy conversation 2026-10-01  
+**Scope:** Ideas, concepts, and strategic direction turned into actionable phases. Not an artifact inventory from the old tree.
+
+Related durable context lives in [`BUSINESS_PLAN.md`](./BUSINESS_PLAN.md). This file is the methodical build plan for the self-serve audit wedge.
+
+---
+
+## Strategic spine
+
+- **Spine:** Agent-era local SMB discoverability.
+- **Pipes:** MCP (or other transports) are implementation choices, not the product.
+- **Northstar (not v1):** An industry-wide graph others can use. Do not block v1 on the graph.
+- **v1 wedge:** A self-service check where a business owner asks: “Is my business discoverable by AI?”
+- **Channel:** Flexible — standalone web portal and/or inside a business’s own chatbot. One audit engine; shells can differ.
+- **Positioning:** As much business-owner-to-AI as possible. Human-in-the-loop exists but will not scale — design must minimize human dependency.
+- **Demand:** Advertising (and similar) drives small businesses to the portal for self-initiated audits.
+
+---
+
+## Owner flow (target experience)
+
+1. **Initiate** — Owner (or their AI / trusted helper) starts the check on the outcome promise, not on plumbing.
+2. **Stakeholder verify** — Prove they are a stakeholder in the business (e.g. six-digit code to a known email on file). Unverified users do not get the deep audit.
+3. **Deep audit** — Goes beyond NAP consistency across major providers to categorical information and relevance.
+4. **Dual outcome** — A holistic picture of:
+   - **Presence:** Are they on the map?
+   - **Recommendability:** If they are, would an AI engine likely recommend them when someone asks about something in their genre?
+5. **Self-serve next steps** — Plain-language findings and ranked DIY fixes; optional re-check. Human expert path is an escape hatch, not the default.
+
+---
+
+## Phases (sequence)
+
+### Phase 0 — Lock the promise
+
+- One-sentence value prop owners understand without jargon.
+- First wedge genre (who we speak to first).
+- Plain-language definition of “recommendable.”
+- v1 shell decision: web, chatbot embed, or both sharing one engine.
+
+**Success:** The promise can be said in one breath without naming a transport (MCP, etc.).
+
+### Phase 1 — Trust gate
+
+- Claim-a-business + stakeholder verification (email code first; other signals later).
+- Minimal PII, clear consent, rate limits / abuse controls.
+
+**Success:** Verified owners reach the audit; unverified cannot.
+
+### Phase 2 — Audit engine (the product)
+
+- **Presence score:** On the map across major providers + category consistency.
+- **Recommendability score:** Likelihood an AI would surface them for genre-relevant queries.
+- Start with a thin, explainable rubric — not a black box.
+- Outputs: plain-language findings + ranked owner-actionable fixes.
+
+**Success:** Same business twice ≈ same scores; owner understands why.
+
+### Phase 3 — Self-serve loop
+
+- Results page / chat readback, fix checklist, optional re-check.
+- No mandatory human review.
+- Optional “ask an expert” as escape hatch only.
+
+**Success:** Majority complete without human touch.
+
+### Phase 4 — Demand
+
+- Lightweight campaigns that send SMBs to the portal for a self-initiated audit.
+- Funnel metrics: start → verify → complete → recheck.
+
+**Success:** Acquisition cost and completion rate are known; creative/genre can iterate.
+
+### Phase 5 — Toward the graph (later)
+
+- Only after audits produce structured, consented business truth worth composing.
+- Graph remains Northstar; does not gate v1.
+
+---
+
+## Build order (what ships first)
+
+1. Promise + wedge genre  
+2. Verify gate  
+3. Presence score  
+4. Recommendability score  
+5. Self-serve results / fixes  
+6. Recheck  
+7. Then ads / demand programs  
+
+Do **not** wait on the industry graph or a single wire protocol.
+
+---
+
+## Open decisions
+
+- First v1 genre  
+- Web vs chatbot shell (or both)  
+- Which providers feed “on the map”  
+- How “would AI recommend” is measured without overclaiming  
+- Source of “email on file” for verify  
+- Free vs paid audit  
+- What never goes to a human  
+
+---
+
+## v1 success bar
+
+- Owner can finish alone  
+- Two clear scores with explainable why  
+- Actionable DIY fixes  
+- Repeatable recheck  
+- Ads can point at it without a sales call  
+
+---
+
+## Workstreams (parallel once Phase 0 is clear)
+
+| Workstream | Owns |
+|------------|------|
+| Promise & wedge | Positioning, genre, “recommendable” language |
+| Trust & verify | Claim flow, codes, consent, abuse |
+| Presence engine | Provider coverage, NAP + category checks |
+| Recommendability engine | Rubric, explainability, genre relevance |
+| Experience shell | Web and/or chatbot UX on one engine |
+| Growth | Campaigns, funnel metrics |
+| Graph (later) | Composition of consented structured truth |
+
+---
+
+## Capture note
+
+Drafted in conversation 2026-10-01; written here so the plan is durable and not call-only. Revise in place as Ty locks decisions.