Most AI visibility work dies in the gap between a dashboard and a published page. You can see that a competitor is cited instead of you, and you can usually see why, but turning that into a page that actually earns the citation is a separate, slow job. Generic AI writers do not help much here: they produce fluent text that is not grounded in your evidence, your sources, or your brand voice. Content projects close that gap by turning a measured gap into a grounded draft, with the evidence carried the whole way.
What launched
Content projects turn an AI visibility gap into a reviewable, publishable asset. Each one starts from a measured opportunity, carries an evidence pack and a brief, and ends as a draft in your CMS that you approve. You see the whole thing before a word is written: the angle, the sources cited instead of you, the suggested title and format, and the brand knowledge the draft will draw from.
Why monitoring and generic writing both fall short
A dashboard that flags a gap and stops there moves nothing. A generic AI writer that ignores the gap produces text no one asked for. The useful version sits in between: it starts from the specific gap SurfacedBy measured, grounds the draft in your own facts and sources, and checks the result before it reaches you.
The workflow
Every content project runs the same path:
- An evidence pack: the gap, the rivals cited instead, and the prompts it affects.
- A brief with an editable angle, so you steer the piece before it is written.
- A research-grade draft, grounded in your Brand Knowledge Base and live research rather than generated in one shot.
- Claims and AEO checks, with questionable claims flagged inline for you to confirm or cut.
- Block-level edits and section regeneration, so revisions stay surgical instead of becoming full rewrites.
- Rich media suggestions where they fit, including video embeds and generated images, not on every project.
- A draft pushed to WordPress or Shopify for your review.
Grounded, not generic
The difference from a generic AI writer is what the draft is built on. The Brand Knowledge Base holds your own facts, pages, and voice. The evidence pack ties every project to a measured gap. The claims and AEO checks catch the places where a confident sentence is not actually supported. That grounding is the whole point, because a fluent paragraph that cites nothing is exactly what gets passed over in AI answers.
You publish drafts, not posts
When a project is ready, SurfacedBy creates a draft in your CMS. It does not publish for you. WordPress and Shopify both land as drafts you open, read, and publish yourself, and if a connection expires the card tells you to reconnect rather than failing quietly. Nothing public ships without your hand on it.
What it does not claim
A few honest limits. This is not an autonomous agent that writes and ships on its own; every public step waits for you. Generated rich media is a suggestion where it fits, not a guarantee on every project. And when SurfacedBy later reports that a published page moved your visibility, that is an observed change recorded next to the work, the same way we treat AI traffic and visibility as a correlation to read rather than a cause to claim.
How to start
Open Opportunities on a tracked domain, pick a gap, and use Create to start a content project. It opens in the Actions hub with its evidence and brief attached, and stays there through the draft, the checks, and your final review.
A note on timing: content projects change often, from customer requests, our own testing, and the publishing channels and AI surfaces we keep adding work for. Treat the screenshots here as how the flow looked at launch. If yours has more steps, formats, or destinations than what you see here, you are on a newer version.
