The historical AI Citation Index
This historical public record asked ChatGPT fixed buyer questions about Deep Ocean's former category and recorded the vendors named and sources surfaced in three July 2026 entries. The 8- and 11-query panels are exploratory under current IAB guidance and do not support a decision-grade visibility estimate. Sampling is paused. These records do not describe the current agency service or establish client results.
- Which providers ChatGPT named in these sampled answers, question by question and dated: iPullRank, Siege Media, First Page Sage, Profound, Peec, Otterly and others, with the exact query that produced each name.
- How much the answers move. Two samplings of the identical query on the same day agreed on only two of six names. One check gives you one draw from a list that changes between runs.
- Which sources were surfaced with these answers. arXiv appeared in 11 of 22 ChatGPT query samplings across entries 2 and 3. The observed mix changed: the first-party share of surfaced citations was 43 percent on 2026-07-16 and 69 percent on 2026-07-23.
- Deep Ocean's result. Deep Ocean has been named on 0 of the 11 tracked queries in every panel-v3 entry. The full result remains in the public record.
Named for the category query
The tracked query for this category: “Best AI search optimization agencies 2026”. These are the domains ChatGPT named in its answer.
| Domain | Named in |
|---|---|
| iPullRank | Comparison table + shortlist |
| First Page Sage | Comparison table + shortlist |
| Siege Media | Comparison table + shortlist |
| Omniscient Digital | Comparison table |
| Optimist | Shortlist |
| NoGood | Shortlist |
On one of the buying questions this panel tracks, the answer named six vendors from our category and did not name Deep Ocean. Our own row follows.
The full week-1 panel, all 8 questions
The category query above is one of 8 tracked buyer questions sampled in this entry. This is the complete historical panel, question by question.
| Tracked buyer question | Named? | Named instead |
|---|---|---|
| Best answer engine optimization (AEO) agency to get a brand cited by ChatGPT and Perplexity | No | LoudFace, XQL Group, First Page Sage, Siege Media; platforms: Profound, HubSpot AEO, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit, Peec AI, Otterly.ai |
| Who can fix my brand being invisible in AI answers even though we rank well on Google? | No | Profound, Goodie AI, Omniscient Digital |
| AI visibility audit that shows which competitors ChatGPT recommends instead of my brand | No | Profound, Goodie AI, Peec AI, Scrunch AI, Otterly.AI |
| Agencies that offer a fixed price AEO install with a measurable citation guarantee | No | Revlift, AEO Engine, UnFoldMart, AEO Agency USA. The answer itself called this offer shape "still a gap in the market" |
| How do I make my website readable and citable by AI assistants, and who offers this as a done-for-you service? | No | No vendor named in the captured answer body |
| Best AI search optimization agencies 2026 | No | iPullRank, First Page Sage, Siege Media, Omniscient Digital, Optimist, NoGood |
| White label AEO or GEO delivery partner for marketing agencies | No | Blobic, AEO Engine Partner Program, Nico Digital, AI GEO Insight Agency |
| How can my SEO agency add answer engine optimization services without hiring in house? | No | No vendor named in the captured answer body |
Sampled 2026-07-08, week 1, panel v2, single engine (ChatGPT web session). The retired agency-format artifact remains in the historical archive.
Recurring across the wider panel
The category query above is one of 8 fixed queries in this entry. The following domains appeared across multiple queries in the panel:
| Domain | Type |
|---|---|
| LoudFace | Agency |
| XQL Group | Agency |
| Profound | Platform |
| Otterly | Platform |
| Peec | Platform |
On the fixed-price question, the engine stated it could not verify any provider combining a one-time fixed price with a contractually measurable citation guarantee, and in an earlier entry called that offer shape “still a gap in the market”.
Captured on the tracked query in entries 1 and 3. This is historical research from the retired Visibility Sprint period. It remains evidence about those dated answers and does not validate a current product or business model.
Our own row, entry 1
deepoceanstudio.com was named on 0 of the 8 tracked queries in this sample. We publish our own number before anyone else's. This is the panel v2 baseline; the latest published row is entry 3 below, 0 of 11 on panel v3.
Entry 2: the first panel v3 row
Panel v3 keeps the 8 vendor-recommendation questions from entry 1 and adds 3 data-source questions. We sampled the full 11-question panel twice on the same day in separate sessions. Two repetitions expose some run-to-run disagreement but do not estimate answer stability or confidence.
Our own row, entry 2
deepoceanstudio.com was named on 0 of the 11 tracked queries. Both independent same-day samplings agree, and a parallel Bing retrieval check found the domain absent on all 11 as well. We publish our own absence first, now on the wider panel.
What we did between entry 1 and entry 2
One action on our own domain sits between the two rows, and the result was a null. We submitted a GoodFirms directory profile on 2026-07-08 and it went live on 2026-07-09. In entry 2, GoodFirms was not among the cited sources in either same-day sampling, and no directory profile appeared in any cited-source set on any of the 11 queries. That action predates our preregistered flip protocol and was never registered under it, so it could not have counted as a flip in either direction. We record it here because this index annotates every action we take on our own domain, including the ones that produce nothing.
What repeated sampling showed
Across the two same-day samplings of the identical category query (“Best AI search optimization agencies 2026”), only two names appeared in both answers: iPullRank and Siege Media. Every other agency named in one answer was absent or replaced in the other. The disagreement shows why repeated responses are necessary. This record does not contain enough repetitions to estimate stability.
The three data questions
On the added data-source questions, the captured answers discussed llms.txt evidence and repeated an external citation-share statistic. They credited sources including arXiv, Muck Rack, and Chrome for Developers, not Deep Ocean. Those statements belong to the captured answers and their cited sources; the 11-query panel did not independently establish a market-wide citation share.
Entry 3: the third row, sampled on time
Same 11 questions as entry 2, plus 3 reference questions sampled alongside them. One response per reference question is insufficient to rule out broader engine or sampling changes.
Our own row, entry 3
deepoceanstudio.com was named on 0 of the 11 tracked queries. The three reference questions did not show an obvious category-level discontinuity in this run, but one response per question cannot rule out a broader engine change. Third row, same observed number.
Limits of entry 3
Entry 2 was sampled twice on the same day; entry 3 was sampled once per question, so entry 3 has less protection against a volatile answer. The Bing retrieval check was not run that week. Entry 3 used High reasoning effort, while entry 1 used the faster default. These limitations are recorded beside the unchanged 0-of-11 result.
Brands named in entry 3
On the category question the answer named iPullRank, Siege Media, Optimist, Directive, Go Fish Digital and Omnius, and cited Clutch among its sources. Across the rest of the panel the recurring names were iPullRank, Amsive, NoGood, Omnius, Brainlabs, Single Grain, and on the agency question Butter Marketing, Agency Platform, Big Fin SEO, Nico Digital and Blobic. Two questions produced no vendor at all: on one, the engine offered to run the visibility audit itself instead of recommending anyone; on the other, it answered with method only. On the fixed-price question it stated it could not verify any provider combining a one-time fixed price with a contractually measurable citation guarantee.
The three data questions again surfaced Muck Rack, Foundation, arXiv, llmstxt.org, OpenAI, and Google rather than Deep Ocean. One answer repeated an external market-wide citation-share estimate. That estimate is not a result of this index and does not describe the eight commercial questions, where the observed first-party share moved from 43 percent to 69 percent between the two dated rows.
Which sources the answers draw on, aggregated
Each entry above records the cited sources answer by answer. Aggregating them across questions and engines shows which sources recur. The public meter's dated rows use ChatGPT only; the Perplexity and Bing figures come from a dated capture run of the same 11 questions, kept to the same receipts discipline.
| Recurring source | Where it recurs | Class |
|---|---|---|
| arXiv | 11 of 22 ChatGPT query samplings, entries 2 and 3 | Academic preprints |
| OpenAI, Google and Microsoft documentation | 6 of 11 ChatGPT queries, entry 3 | Engine and search docs |
| iPullRank | 4 of 11 ChatGPT queries, entry 3 | Agency site, also named in answers |
| AEO Engine | 2 ChatGPT queries, entry 2, and 2 Perplexity queries | Vendor partner pages |
| SE Ranking | Cited three times in one Perplexity answer | Third-party study |
In these dated rows, source composition varied by question, run, and engine. On the eight commercial questions, the first-party share of observed citations was 43% on 2026-07-16 and 69% on 2026-07-23. On the fixed-price question in entry 3, all eight surfaced sources were the named vendors' own sites; one week earlier the same question surfaced six third-party listicles and no vendor pages. The three data questions surfaced third-party research including Muck Rack, Foundation, arXiv, and SE Ranking. On one citation-share question, the ChatGPT and Perplexity source lists had zero overlap. These small samples describe only the captured answers.
This table describes who was cited at sampling time for each engine and question intent. It provides no evidence that publishing a similar page will produce a citation. Deep Ocean's latest published result on this panel is 0 of 11.
Nicolò Brignoni
Founder, Deep Ocean · follow the work
Protocol
Every entry in this index follows the same protocol: a fixed, buyer-shaped query panel sampled via the ChatGPT web interface. For each query we record two separate things: the brands named in the answer text, and the source domains the engine cites, whether they favor us or a competitor. The row states what was named, never why it was named or how to change it. Rows are immutable: any panel change is a version bump with a visible break annotation, and retired queries keep their history.
The original intended cadence was weekly. Entry 1 was sampled 2026-07-08 on panel v2, using the 8 buyer questions shown above. Panel v3 added 3 data-source questions, creating a visible version break. Entry 2 was sampled 2026-07-16 and recorded 0 of 11. Entry 3 was sampled 2026-07-23 and also recorded 0 of 11. Sampling is currently paused during manual standby. Missing weeks remain empty, and any future row will carry its actual date.
Known comparability break at entry 1. Entry 1 used a signed-in web session with memory active. Later entries used temporary chats with no memory between runs. Entry 1 is therefore not directly comparable with the later entries.
Known late run: week of 2026-07-13. The scheduled row was completed and published on 2026-07-16 after the sampling procedure was corrected. It appears above as entry 2.
This record is exploratory, not decision-grade. Current IAB guidance classifies fewer than 50 queries as exploratory and calls for repeated responses, stable distributions, confidence reporting, environment controls, and reset rules for decision-grade use. This record has 8 to 11 queries, inconsistent repetition, only three dated entries, and a panel and environment break after entry 1. It supports no trend, prevalence, share-of-visibility, or budget decision.
This index draws from Deep Ocean's July 2026 historical sampling record. Read the historical self-study, the field sample of two absent US software brands, or the research archive.
Review AI claims around a product change
This page preserves Deep Ocean's historical category panel. Data on this page is not presented as product, provider, demand, or venture proof.