By Idael Diaz, Director of Atlas Domus
A buyer moving to South Florida may start with a question about gated communities with deep-water dockage. The question names neither a developer nor a community. To evaluate discovery at this stage, a developer needs to know which projects an answer engine mentions, what it cites, and whether those sources support the answer.
An unbranded visibility audit starts with a fixed set of buyer questions and a record of the public facts that should answer them. The work becomes useful when it can show the development team which facts are missing, inconsistent, or hard to verify.
Build a query set around material buying decisions
Use questions a broker or adviser recognizes. Cover the market, property type, and a meaningful condition such as access, delivery phase, or a publicly verified amenity. Build in variations a buyer would naturally use while keeping a fixed core for repeat testing.
A developer should be able to explain why each query belongs in the test. A question about a specific amenity may expose a missing source. A comparison between locations may reveal whether an answer confuses two projects. Include a branded control question to help distinguish a wider discovery gap from a problem with the project’s basic identity.
Maintain a record of approved public claims
For each material fact, capture the wording, the source page, the date checked, and the person who can approve a correction. A claim about marina access, for example, may need to distinguish an available berth from a community amenity, or to state conditions the sales team is authorized to disclose.
Put the approved wording in readable text on the development’s site. Cross-check authorized listings, architectural profiles, and independent publications where relevant. Correct a conflict at the source when possible. Google’s AI search features use existing search eligibility requirements, and Google describes useful, accessible text and consistent structured data as part of the same SEO fundamentals. Google Search Central guidance
Report citation and accuracy separately
Record the prompt, engine, date, market setting when available, cited URL, and the substance of the result. Use a simple set of outcomes:
- The project was absent from the answer.
- The project was mentioned without a usable citation.
- A cited source supported the material claim.
- The answer included a material error or cited a source that did not support the claim.
Run the same core prompts on a consistent cadence. Compare changes across engines and dates, and note any changes to the underlying project facts. A single output is an observation. Repeated results can guide a prioritization decision, with the limitations still visible.
Decide what to fix first
Prioritize factual errors a serious prospect could act on, then address gaps in accessible source material. Keep the project’s inquiry route available so a reader can ask a specific question or request a viewing. Report visibility and sales outcomes separately.
Evaluate a pilot for one development
Bring one community or development and the markets it competes in. Atlas Domus will scope a pilot around repeatable buyer questions, source verification, and a practical list of corrections. The pilot can establish what to measure before a wider rollout.
Request an AD-PB-001 Pilot Evaluation
