Content gaps

The engine answered. It just did not say your name.

Find the queries where you are relevant and absent, diagnose why the engine chose someone else, score each gap, and convert the ones worth doing into briefs with the format, proof and entities already specified.

The problem

Silent losses have no bounce rate

A buyer asks an engine for a shortlist. You are not on it. There is no session to inspect, no bounce to explain, no line in any report. The loss is complete and invisible, and by the time it shows up in pipeline it is a quarter old.

Search rankings do not reveal this, because engines synthesise and cite differently from how they rank. You can hold the first organic result for a query and be entirely absent from the answer written above it, built from three sources you have never audited.

What it does

Inside the feature

Find the gap, diagnose the cause, score it, then write the brief. The diagnosis is the part most tools skip.

Query groupingHigh-intent queries clustered by topic, persona, funnel stage and competitive context, then labelled by intent: recommendation, comparison, problem-solving, operations.
Gap diagnosisWhy you are missing, named specifically: thin coverage, missing proof, unclear positioning, no comparison content, or a claim the engine has no source for. Four of those five are not writing problems.
Competitor exposureWhich sources the engine cited for the competitor, which proof points it repeated, and the content pattern that is winning the answer.
Citation gap mappingThe references, evidence and third-party signals a page would need before an engine would trust it on this topic. Mapped before the brief is written, not after.
ScoringEach gap scored on buyer intent, topic relevance, competitive pressure, brand fit, content effort, and the likelihood that content actually closes it. The last one is the honest column.
Gap to briefApproved gaps become briefs with the recommended format, the answer angle, the proof required, the entities to cover and the FAQ block, ready for drafting.
What you get

The output, not the dashboard.

✓A diagnosed list of gaps, each with a stated cause rather than a score.
✓The specific third-party sources doing the work for whoever is winning.
✓A prioritised roadmap, ranked by whether content can plausibly close the gap at all.
✓Briefs that carry their own reasoning, so the writer knows why the page exists.
What it will not do

Not every gap is a content gap, and the scoring says so. When an engine ignores you because it has no reason to trust you, a new page will not fix it and the diagnosis will name credibility rather than coverage. Roughly 72% of citations come from sources a brand does not control, which means the honest recommendation is sometimes work that happens off your own site entirely.

FAQ

Content Gaps, in questions

A prompt where your brand is relevant but absent, under-described, or less visible than a competitor inside the generated answer. It is defined at the level of the answer, not the ranked page, which is why a strong search position can coexist with a total gap.

A traditional gap analysis compares keyword coverage against competitors' ranking pages. This compares the answers themselves: who gets named, which sources are cited, which proof points repeat, and what evidence the engine could actually use. The output is a brief with evidence requirements, not a keyword with a volume estimate.

Yes, and this is the most useful screen. It exposes the sources the engine cited, the proof points it repeated, and the content pattern behind the win. That converts a blind spot into a specific, arguable fix.

By buyer intent, topic relevance, competitive pressure, brand fit, content effort, and the likelihood that publishing something actually changes the answer. That last factor is what separates a real gap from an idea that merely sounds good in a planning meeting.

No. Existing pages make the diagnosis faster because there is something to compare against, but the feature also surfaces queries where you have no asset at all. Those are frequently the most valuable, because nobody has claimed the answer yet.

A landing page, a comparison page, an FAQ block, a customer proof section, an integration page, a blog post or a refresh of something that already exists. The brief names the format, because the format is part of whether the engine can extract an answer from it.

Monthly, and additionally around launches, campaigns and competitor messaging shifts. Answers move when the sources behind them move, and a competitor's new comparison page can change your standing on a prompt within weeks.

Related

Features that work with this one

Workflow

Opportunities

The biggest change since yesterday, and three actions to take about it.

Workflow

Generate Content

Briefs to drafts to a pre-publish score, built for answer extraction.

Analytics

Prompt Analysis

Discover and cluster the prompts buyers ask, then turn them into briefs.

See the publishing pillar →

Find the answers you are missing from.

The free audit shows which of your buyers' questions get answered without you.