Surface marks show where New Reward checks visibility. They are not partner badges or outcome guarantees.

Back to case studiesEntity-readiness plan

AI consulting brand: turning a flat baseline into an entity plan

This AI consulting brand had no measured AI visibility at the start. New Reward used competitor and gap evidence to build a clear entity-readiness plan for future authority work.

An AI consultant and strategist organize source pages, schema, buyer questions, and competitor gaps into an entity readiness plan.AI consulting entity map

An entity-readiness map: sources, schema, questions, and competitors organized before stronger answer-engine claims are made.

Visual boundary: New case-specific illustration of the entity map, drawn from the package numbers on this page.

10Competitors mapped

A zero baseline became a scoped, verifiable plan with full competitor coverage, full gap coverage, and deployment-ready asset groups.

Operational proofMeasured change

This case is framed as operational proof.

Measured windowPercent change

Before-and-after percentages are published once both sides of the window are source-backed.

The journey

Problem to proof.

01

Problem

The measured AI visibility score was 0/100. The business was not being surfaced in the tested AI answers, even though the market had clear competitor signals.

02

Action

New Reward mapped competitors, found content gaps, prepared recommendations, checked package quality, and flagged the question set for recalibration.

03

Result

The client received a complete competitor and content-gap map plus 23 readiness asset groups for future implementation.

04

Why it matters

AI consulting buyers need trust before they book. If the brand is missing from answer engines, the business has to build clearer entity, content, and proof signals.

Sales use

How to use this proof in a buyer conversation.

Buyer question

How do we turn a zero AI-visibility baseline into a credible entity plan?

Use this for consulting, agency, and expert-service buyers that need authority structure before publishing more content.

Objection handled: The buyer may want citations immediately; the case shows the source, schema, content, and competitor map needed first.

Best fit

What we measure next

  • Recalibrated benchmark questions
  • Post-implementation citation and mention scan
Client context

Anonymized AI consulting client

Industry
AI consulting and professional services
Timeframe
February 2026 package audit
Starting point
The measured baseline was 0/100 across the AI engines in the audit.
Proof boundary

This proves package readiness and planning depth: the competitor map, the content-gap queue, and 23 readiness asset groups from the February 2026 audit.

Verified result

A zero baseline became a scoped, verifiable plan with full competitor coverage, full gap coverage, and deployment-ready asset groups.

Inspectable work

What shipped and where the proof comes from.

What shipped
  • Mapped 10 competitors and 10 content gaps.
  • Prepared 8 recommendations across content, schema, and training outputs.
  • Checked package integrity, JSON validity, client scoping, and placeholder cleanup.
  • Flagged the benchmark-question set as too geography-heavy and set recalibration as the next step.
Source notes

Deep package audit

Internal package audit dated 2026-02-25

Package audit data

Internal deployment-package audit data dated 2026-02-25

Next step

Turn this proof into the right offer lane.

Start from the evidence, then choose the work that matches the buyer path.