geolocal-io/docs/SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_CONCEPT.md

# Self-serve AI discoverability — concept

**Branch:** `planning-selfserve-audit` (from `planning-rev2`)  
**Status:** Working draft — conversation checkpoint 2026-10-01  
**Role:** Single source of truth for the self-serve AI discoverability wedge (concept + phased plan)  
**Related:** [`BUSINESS_PLAN.md`](./BUSINESS_PLAN.md) on `planning-rev2` lineage

This doc captures **ideas, concepts, and strategic direction** turned into actionable phases for the self-serve “Am I discoverable by AI?” wedge. It is not an inventory of old-repo artifacts. Do not spawn a parallel PLAN.md — revise this file in place.

---

## 1. Mission

**How local business owners get AI to recommend them.**

Owner-to-AI is the center of gravity. Proof (audits, scores, before/after) is a **selling point**, not the mission. The mission is recommendation in the agent era — not becoming another consumer destination, and not selling a protocol.

---

## 2. Problem frame

| Layer | Stance |
|-------|--------|
| **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 |
| **Not** | A consumer browse site; rebuilding Calendly/Shopify; “we are an MCP company” |

v1 earns structured, consented business truth by helping owners see and fix how AI sees them. The graph comes **after** that truth is worth composing.

---

## 3. Product

A **self-service** experience — standalone web portal and/or inside a business’s own chatbot — where an owner asks:

> “Is my business discoverable by AI?”

### Target flow

1. **Initiate** — Owner (or trusted helper / their AI) starts on an outcome promise, not plumbing.
2. **Stakeholder verify** — e.g. six-digit code to a known email on file. Unverified users do not get the deep audit.
3. **Deep audit** — Beyond NAP consistency across major providers into **categorical information** and **relevance**.
4. **Two scores**
   - **Presence** — Are they on the map? (major providers + category consistency)
   - **Recommendability** — If they are, would an AI engine likely recommend them for genre-relevant queries?
5. **Self-serve next steps** — Plain-language findings + ranked DIY fixes; optional re-check. Human expert path is an escape hatch, not the default.

### Positioning

As much business-owner-to-AI as possible. Human-in-the-loop resources exist but **will not scale** — design minimizes human dependency. Advertising and similar demand programs drive SMBs to **self-initiated** audits.

---

## 4. Channel reality (as of September 2026)

Research snapshot (late Sep / early Oct 2026):

- **No** major consumer chatbot (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini consumer, Perplexity, M365 Copilot, etc.) will **auto MCP-handshake** with a random SMB’s server with **zero** owner/developer configuration.
- MCP support that exists is **connector/config** (and sometimes curated directories / suggested connectors for listed partners) — not silent discovery of every business MCP as an inference engine.
- Those same assistants **still read normal web pages** as web content. That is **not** an MCP session.

### Product implication

| Priority | Channel |
|----------|---------|
| **Highest now** | Interactive **web app** (owner completes audit in-browser) |
| Optional parallel | Embed the **same engine** in the business’s chatbot shell |
| **Revisit in ~3 months** | MCP / remote connectors as a distribution pipe — not the v1 product |

Do not block the wedge on MCP adoption in consumer chat UIs.

---

## 5. Taxonomy stance

There is **no** single canonical “SMB genre” taxonomy that Apple, Google, and Yelp snap to for discovery.

| System | Role |
|--------|------|
| **NAICS** | Official US statistical / production classification ([census.gov/naics](https://www.census.gov/naics/)) — useful for B2B/industry codes, **not** how people search “plumber near me” |
| **SIC** | Legacy; NAICS replaced it for federal stats |
| **Google Business Profile** | Own category IDs (`gcid:…`); listable via Business Information API |
| **Apple Business Connect / Maps** | Own primary + additional categories; data-spec historically published as categories CSV (docs moving under Apple Business rebrand) |
| **Yelp** | Own hierarchical aliases; public via Fusion categories API |
| **schema.org LocalBusiness** | Open, web-native type hierarchy — best **spine** for an AI-era product that also publishes structured web truth |

**No official Apple ↔ Google ↔ Yelp concordance** exists. Multi-platform presence products build their own maps.

### Recommendation (locked as direction, details iterative)

- **Internal spine:** thin product genre layer in **owner language**, keyed to **schema.org LocalBusiness** where it fits  
- **Optional:** NAICS for statistical / B2B  
- **Outbound maps:** GBP categories, Apple categories, Yelp aliases — for presence pulls and fix guidance  
- **Do not** adopt Apple, Google, or Yelp as the internal source of truth  

**Hypothesis pending real audit data:** spine + maps quality will improve as we score real businesses; revise mappings from evidence, not from guessing.

---

## 6. Genre clusters (audit complexity)

**One dual scoreboard, cluster-variant rubrics.** A plumber running from a truck and a surfboard rental for tourists are different products of “on the map” and “would AI recommend.”

### Dimensions that split audits

- **Where value is delivered** — customer comes to you vs you go to them vs hybrid vs mobile/seasonal spot  
- **What “place” means** — fixed storefront / hidden service-area address / destination landmark / multi-location  
- **Decision data** — menu, services list, inventory, booking, hours-open-now, price band, amenities  
- **Demand shape** — emergency, same-day convenience, planned occasion, tourist/trip, B2B research  
- **Trust signals** — review volume/velocity, photos, licenses, brand vs indie  
- **Seasonality / hours rigidity**  
- **B2C vs B2B** — who the AI is helping choose  

### Proposed clusters

| # | Cluster | Presence emphasizes | Recommendability emphasizes |
|---|---------|---------------------|----------------------------|
| 1 | **Service-area trades** (plumber, HVAC, cleaner) | SAB vs fake storefront; service areas; category/services; no walk-in theater | Job-type relevance; coverage of searcher’s area; reliability/license themes |
| 2 | **Storefront retail** | Address/signage/hours; category; attributes; multi-location | Assortment fit; open-now; real stock photos; neighborhood fit |
| 3 | **Food service** (restaurants, cafés, bars, trucks) | Cuisine/format category (not generic Restaurant); hours; menu freshness; dine-in/takeout/delivery; truck location/events | Cuisine + occasion intent; price/ambiance; dietary clarity; review recency; open-now |
| 4 | **Professional / office** | Category depth; service pages; citations; weaker “open now” weight | Specialty match; credentials; authority language |
| 5 | **Home & personal care** (salon, dentist, medspa) | Booking path; services; hours; category | Skill match; booking friction; outcome-themed reviews |
| 6 | **Hospitality & tourism** (hotel, surf rental, tour) | Lodging/activity category; amenities; destination geo; seasonal hours; OTA vs owned facts | Trip-intent fit; amenity truth; landmark relevance; seasonal availability |
| 7 | **Healthcare / regulated** (if in scope) | Category + attribute accuracy; hours; locations | Condition/specialty match; acceptance; careful claims |
| 8 | **Hybrid / multi-mode** | Storefront **and** service-area rules both correct | Mode implied by query; flag mismatches |

**Restaurant sub-genres** (fine dining vs QSR vs food truck, cuisine types) are **parameters inside food service**, not separate products.

### v1 pack order

Start with **two** cluster packs that prove the split:

1. Service-area trades  
2. Food service  

(If the commercial wedge is tourist SMBs, hospitality/tourism may swap with food service as the second pack.)

**Hypothesis pending real audit data:** these eight clusters and their weight packs will be validated or merged once we score live businesses; do not treat the table as final ontology.

---

## 7. Phases (0–5)

| Phase | Focus | Success |
|-------|--------|---------|
| **0** | Lock promise, wedge genre, shell (web first) | Promise in one breath without naming a pipe |
| **1** | Trust gate (claim + email code verify) | Verified only reach deep audit |
| **2** | Audit engine — Presence + Recommendability | Repeatable scores; owner understands why |
| **3** | Self-serve loop — findings, DIY fixes, recheck | Majority finish without human |
| **4** | Demand — ads to self-initiated audits | Funnel rates known |
| **5** | Toward industry graph | Only after consented structured truth is worth composing |

### 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 first (see §4); chatbot embed optional later; 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 — with **cluster-variant weight packs** (§6).
- 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.

### 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 |

---

## 8. Open decisions

Still for Ty to lock:

- First **v1 genre / cluster pack** (trades vs food vs hospitality)  
- **Shell:** web-only v1 vs web + chatbot embed  
- Which **providers** feed Presence  
- How **Recommendability** is measured without overclaiming (heuristics vs live assistant checks)  
- Source of **email on file** for verify  
- **Free vs paid** audit  
- What **never** goes to a human; when escalation is allowed  

---

## Hypotheses (explicit)

Mark as **hypotheses pending real audit data** — revise from scored businesses, not from debate alone:

1. Eight genre clusters are the right split (may merge/split).  
2. schema.org LocalBusiness + outbound maps to GBP/Apple/Yelp is the right taxonomy spine.  
3. Two v1 packs (service-area trades + food service) are enough to prove cluster-variant rubrics.  
4. Interactive web app outperforms MCP-first distribution for SMB owners in the near term (~3 month revisit).  

---

## Capture note

Drafted from strategy conversation 2026-10-01 (voice + chat). Former duplicate `SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_PLAN.md` was merged into this file and removed — keep a single SoT. Nothing is locked until Ty says so.