CiteMap · Guides

Citation-Gap Triage Worksheet

An evidence-first worksheet for AI-answer reviews · Last reviewed 2026-09-22 CST · No visibility guarantees

A citation gap is a decision to investigate, not a score to inflate. Capture the exact answer, classify the gap, and route one bounded next action to one owner.

Start with the observation

Run a buyer-shaped prompt on the engine or surface you are reviewing. Save the exact prompt, access date and time, locale when relevant, answer text or permitted excerpt, named brands, and every cited URL. A single answer is an observation; it is not a market-share estimate or a permanent ranking.

Worksheet row

PromptWhat would a real buyer ask?
Engine / surfaceWhich answer surface was reviewed?
Access dateWhen was the observation collected?
Brand statusPresent, absent, substituted, or misframed?
Citation URL(s)Which sources were cited, if any?
Gap typeChoose one primary classification below.
Next actionWhat single change is worth testing?
Owner / review dateWho will act, and when will you look again?

Classify before you prescribe

Absence

The answer does not mention the brand where the product may be relevant. Check whether the prompt actually matches the brand’s audience and category before treating omission as a problem.

Substitution

Another vendor is named for the job the buyer described. Record the substitute, the wording that made it relevant, and whether your own product has a verifiable page covering that use case.

Misframing

The brand appears, but its category, audience, capability, or limitation is wrong. Separate a factual correction from a positioning change; the appropriate owner may be documentation, product marketing, or support.

Unsupported answer

The answer makes a material claim without a source you can inspect. Note the claim and the missing evidence. Do not “fix” it by asserting that your own page will be cited.

Source gap

A recurring third-party source frames the category, but its description is incomplete, outdated, or not relevant to the buyer’s question. The next action may be a source correction, an editorial contribution, or a clearer owned page.

A short triage sequence

  1. Confirm fit: Is this prompt inside the product’s real audience and use case?
  2. Preserve evidence: Save the prompt, access details, answer notes, and cited URLs.
  3. Pick one gap: Do not label every weak answer as every gap type.
  4. Find the owner: Route to content, documentation, product marketing, PR, partnerships, or a fact-checker.
  5. Define the test: Name the page, correction, outreach, or documentation change and a review date.

Example row (fictional)

Prompt: “What tools help a two-person SaaS team document customer questions?”
Observation: A competing vendor was named and cited; the product under review was absent.
Gap: Substitution, pending fit check.
Next action: Compare the product’s existing documentation with the buyer’s job and write one clear use-case page if the fit is real.

This is a format example, not a measured result or a claim about any brand.

What good triage does not claim

Do not convert a handful of prompts into a visibility score, traffic forecast, market-share statement, guaranteed citation rate, or promise of revenue. Engines, accounts, locations, models, prompts, and dates can change the result. Keep the raw notes so later reviews can distinguish a changed observation from a changed conclusion.

Use the worksheet or ask for a scoped brief

Start with the CiteMap v4 overview and the free AI Citation-Gap Triage Checklist. If you want a defined, async read, the Snapshot is the smaller starting point; the GEO/AEO Map is for a broader competitor and source view. Agencies can review the white-label Agency Pack.