One number can tell the wrong story
Two firms can receive the same headline visibility score while facing entirely different commercial situations. One may be treated well once named but rarely enter consideration. Another may appear often without receiving meaningful credit.
A blended score makes those positions look alike. Any response based on the average risks addressing the wrong problem.
Two commercial promises, four views
At the highest level, Delphic is concerned with two commercial outcomes. Discovery asks whether AI introduces the firm when its expertise is relevant. Authority asks whether AI understands, trusts and carries that expertise into the answer.
Those outcomes need four separate views:
- Discovery asks whether the firm enters the answer when the buyer has not named a provider.
- Authority asks whether the firm's knowledge is used and credited as part of the answer.
- Brand evaluation asks how the firm is described when the buyer names or investigates it.
- Competitive standing asks what position the firm receives when buyers compare sources or providers.
Brand evaluation and Competitive standing show how the firm's position carries into named investigation and comparison. They add precision to the two headline outcomes rather than creating a different commercial story.
Different positions require different decisions
Consider two firms with the same visibility score. The first enters consideration early but is treated only as supporting evidence. The second is praised when buyers investigate it but rarely reaches the initial shortlist. The first needs stronger authority; the second needs stronger discovery. One average cannot reveal that difference.
The four views make the buyer's position intelligible without forcing commercially different results into one score.