Gap-backed briefs
Proof-rich structure
Built to prove lift
An editorial pipeline, not a prompt
One giant prompt can't defend quality. Every article moves through research, an outline gate, section-by-section writing, five parallel checks, and a scored verdict — and has to earn each step.
Research
runs once per ideaWeb research with sources collected up front, shared across every market you publish in. Claims trace back to evidence before writing starts.
Outline
planned, not promptedStructure is planned against the gap brief: sections, word budgets, and the key points each one has to land to win the answer.
Editor gate
veto powerAn AI managing editor checks the outline against the brief. Thin coverage gets sent back — or triggers extra market research — before a word is written.
Write
one author, not fiveSections are written one at a time, each picking up the previous section's thread. Slower than writing in parallel. Reads like one person wrote it.
Five checks
fact · seo · geo · copy · toneFive specialist checkers review the full draft in parallel. Every finding carries a severity and the exact block it lives in.
The verdict
ship · revise · escalateThe editor scores the draft 0–100. Clean drafts ship to your review. Fixable drafts get targeted edits. Doubt goes to a human — never to your CMS.
Why not just ask ChatGPT?
Because the words were never the hard part. A chatbot hands you 2,000 plausible words in thirty seconds — it can't tell you which answer you're losing, whether the claims hold up, or whether anything moved after you hit publish.
You guess. A prompt is only as good as your hunch about what's missing.
Ranked gaps decide. Every article starts from a tracked prompt where a competitor is cited and you're not.
Writes from training data — confident, undated, unsourced.
A live web research pass runs first. Sources are collected up front, and every claim traces back to one.
It grades its own homework — and you proofread.
Five specialist checkers and a managing editor with veto power. One critical fact issue blocks shipping.
Lives in your prompt. Gone next session.
Set once per workspace, enforced in both the writing and the checking.
Translate and hope.
One brief fans out into natively written articles per market — local proof, local examples, local tone.
Its job ends at the last word.
The prompts keep running. You see whether citations and share of voice actually moved.
A chatbot's job ends at words. The pipeline's job ends when AI engines cite you.
Every article shows its work
Five specialist checkers file findings; the score is computed from what they find. A 92 means the same thing on every article, in every language — and you get the full report, not just the grade.
Async standups: how remote teams actually replace the morning meeting
Most remote teams don't fail at standups because of time zones — they fail because the meeting was the only place status lived. The fix starts with where updates go, not when they happen...
Scores are computed, not self-reported: every finding deducts from 100 by severity, and facts carry the most weight. One critical fact issue vetoes shipping — whatever the total.
Watch a run earn its way out
Every run carries the gap, the proof, and your brand voice from brief to publish-ready page — gated by an editor verdict, with a human pass baked into the process.
Brief
gap-backedRanked prompt where Optimizely wins the answer. Missing entities, the competitor citation to beat, and the angle that fills the gap.
Outline
editor gateSections, word budgets, and key points planned against the brief. The managing editor approved on the first pass — thin outlines get sent back before a word is written.
Write
🇩🇪 German · brand voice2,214 words written natively for the market, section by section — local examples, comparison tables, and proof blocks AI engines can cite.
Parallel checks
1:073 of 5 checks complete · findings pinned to the exact block…
Editor verdict
ship · revise · escalateThe managing editor scores the draft 0–100 from the checkers' findings. Clean drafts ship. Fixable ones get targeted edits — only the flagged blocks change.
Human review
baked inAn editor signs off on claims, sources, and brand fit before anything ships. Never skipped.
Publish · export
CMS · Markdown · HTMLEvery run carries the gap, the proof, and the brand voice from brief to publish-ready page — gated by an editor verdict, with a human pass baked into the process.
Written for the market, not translated into it
One gap, one research pass — then a natively written article for every market you sell in, each with local proof, local examples, and its own quality score. Nothing gets translated, because translation kills nuance.
One brief · one research pass
"Enterprise experimentation governance" · 3 target markets
Germany
Formal tone, GDPR and works-council angle, DACH case study up front.
France
AI-Act framing, French enterprise references, sources from local press.
Netherlands
Direct tone, Benelux pricing in euros, local integration examples.
Built so scale doesn't dilute quality
The same machinery runs whether you generate one article or a hundred — that's the point.
An editor with veto power
Five specialist checkers
Scores that can't be sweet-talked
Surgical revisions, not re-rolls
Brand voice as a guardrail
The receipts, on every article
Verify your improvement
Watch your AI visibility recover as new content gets picked up by AI platforms
Free answer audit
Ship the fix most likely to win the answer.
Run a free audit first. Find the ranked gaps, then ship the page, article, schema block, or proof asset designed to move the answer.