AI Marketing Consensus Index / Publication standards
Related Business & Conflict of Interest Disclosure
AI Marketing Consensus Index publishes research about companies operating in AI search marketing, GEO, AI visibility, LLM monitoring, AI citation analysis, market intelligence, and related technologies and services. Some businesses connected to the people and infrastructure supporting AI Marketing Consensus Index operate in these same markets. That creates potential conflicts of interest.
We believe those relationships should be disclosed clearly rather than hidden behind vague language about “partners” or “affiliates.” The most important relationships are with:
- Mark B. Huntley, J.D.
- LLM Authority Index
- CiteWorks Studio
Both LLM Authority Index and CiteWorks Studio may appear in research published by AI Marketing Consensus Index. This page explains those relationships and the safeguards we use to separate them from the underlying research results.
The Short Version
Mark B. Huntley, J.D.
Mark serves as an: AI Search & Visibility Research Reviewer for AI Marketing Consensus Index. Mark also has financial and operational interests connected to: LLM Authority Index and: CiteWorks Studio. Those relationships are relevant because both companies operate in markets that AI Marketing Consensus Index may research and rank.
LLM Authority Index
LLM Authority Index provides AI research data and measurement infrastructure supporting AI Marketing Consensus Index. Its role may include:
- AI response collection
- Recommendation measurement
- Citation measurement
- Prompt-level research
- Competitive benchmarking
- Historical visibility analysis
- Data infrastructure
LLM Authority Index may itself appear as a company being evaluated in relevant AI Marketing Consensus Index studies.
CiteWorks Studio
CiteWorks Studio provides AI search strategy and subject-matter support to AI Marketing Consensus Index. Its role may include:
- AI search strategy
- GEO and AEO subject-matter input
- Research taxonomy development
- Research-question design
- Citation and authority concepts
- Practical AI marketing context
CiteWorks Studio may itself appear as an agency being evaluated in relevant AI Marketing Consensus Index studies.
Why We Are Disclosing This
A research publication should disclose financial interests that could reasonably influence—or appear to influence—its analysis. That is especially important when the publication may rank businesses connected to:
- Its reviewer
- Its research infrastructure
- Its strategic contributors
Readers should not have to discover those relationships independently. We therefore disclose them directly.
Related Businesses May Appear in Our Rankings
AI Marketing Consensus Index may publish studies such as:
- Best GEO Agencies
- Best AI Search Optimization Agencies
- Best AI Visibility Platforms
- Best LLM Monitoring Tools
- Best AI Citation Tracking Platforms
- Best AI Search Audit Companies
- Best AI Market Intelligence Platforms
- Best AI Citation Building Agencies
CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index may legitimately fall within the candidate universe for some of these studies. Their relationship with this project does not exclude them. It also does not guarantee their inclusion.
Related Companies Are Not Automatically Included
In standard open recommendation research, we do not automatically insert: CiteWorks Studio or: LLM Authority Index into the research prompt. For example, a standard prompt might ask:
A B2B SaaS company wants to improve how often it is recommended across leading AI platforms. It wants an experienced GEO or AI search agency that can measure current visibility, identify citation and authority gaps, analyze competitors, and implement a strategy. Which agencies would you recommend, and why?
That prompt does not tell the AI platforms to consider CiteWorks Studio. If the platforms surface CiteWorks Studio naturally, the recommendation is recorded. If they do not, no recommendation is added.
Competitors Are Not Seeded Either
The same neutrality applies to competing companies. Standard open research should not artificially insert:
- A related company
- A favored competitor
- An advertiser
- An affiliate partner
- A company we personally believe should win
into the prompt unless the study is specifically designed as a named-company comparison. The objective is to observe which companies the AI systems independently surface.
Related Companies Receive No Extra AI Votes
Neither CiteWorks Studio nor LLM Authority Index receives:
- Additional recommendation votes
- Bonus points
- Preferential weighting
- Higher recommendation coverage
- Better average recommendation position
- Automatic qualification
- A higher Consensus Score
- Guaranteed category placement
The same ranking methodology applies to related and unrelated companies.
The Underlying AI Responses Determine the Recommendation Data
Suppose a study produces: Competitor A — recommended by 6 of 7 platforms CiteWorks Studio — recommended by 4 of 7 platforms Competitor B — recommended by 3 of 7 platforms CiteWorks Studio remains: 4 of 7. The relationship with AI Marketing Consensus Index does not turn four recommendations into six or seven.
Related Companies Can Rank Poorly
CiteWorks Studio and LLM Authority Index may:
- Rank below competitors
- Receive weak recommendation coverage
- Appear only occasionally
- Fail to qualify for full analysis
- Fail to appear in a study
- Lose ranking position in future research
- Receive critical editorial analysis
Those outcomes should remain visible.
Related Companies Can Also Rank First
If the underlying research independently produces: LLM Authority Index — 7 of 7 or: CiteWorks Studio — 6 of 7 that result can also be published. A related-business relationship does not automatically invalidate favorable research. It does require clear disclosure.
Competitors Can Rank Above Related Companies
A competitor should remain ahead of a related company when the research supports that result. We do not:
- Remove the competitor
- Reduce its recommendation count
- Hide it below a commercial module
- Recalculate the score to favor a related business
- Change the research prompt after seeing an unfavorable result
The purpose of the Index is to measure recommendation behavior, not protect related companies.
Mark Huntley's Role
AI Search & Visibility Research Reviewer
Mark B. Huntley, J.D. serves as an AI Search & Visibility Research Reviewer for applicable AI Marketing Consensus Index research. His reviewer role may include evaluating:
- AI search terminology
- GEO and AEO concepts
- Recommendation interpretation
- Citation methodology
- AI visibility metrics
- Competitive benchmarking
- Market-intelligence interpretation
- Agency-versus-software distinctions
- Unsupported conclusions
- Confusion between mentions, recommendations, and citations
His role is editorial and methodological.
Mark Does Not Determine the AI Vote Count
Mark cannot alter:
- Which AI platforms recommended a company
- Number of recommendations
- Recommendation coverage
- Recorded recommendation position
- Raw AI responses
because he has a business interest in one of the companies being studied.
Mark May Challenge the Interpretation
Human review can identify problems such as:
- Outdated product claims
- Incorrect terminology
- A weak interpretation of AI visibility data
- A citation being treated as a recommendation
- A mention being treated as a vote
- Overstatement of what a ranking proves
- Confusion between agency services and software capabilities
Those issues can be corrected or contextualized. The underlying research event remains preserved.
Mark's Business Interests Are Part of the Disclosure
Mark has financial and operational interests associated with: LLM Authority Index and: CiteWorks Studio. Because those companies may appear in the markets researched by AI Marketing Consensus Index, readers should consider that relationship when evaluating editorial analysis. Our response is not to claim that no conflict exists. Our response is to:
disclose the conflict and constrain where human discretion can affect the data.
LLM Authority Index's Role
LLM Authority Index supports the research infrastructure behind AI Marketing Consensus Index. Depending on the study and workflow, that support may include:
- Running research prompts
- Collecting AI responses
- Structuring recommendation data
- Measuring citation activity
- Tracking competitive visibility
- Preserving historical results
- Supporting analysis across AI platforms
Why LLM Authority Index's Role Creates a Potential Conflict
LLM Authority Index itself operates within AI visibility, AI search measurement, citation intelligence, competitive analysis, and related markets. AI Marketing Consensus Index may therefore publish studies in which LLM Authority Index is a legitimate candidate. For example:
- Best AI Visibility Platforms
- Best AI Citation Tracking Platforms
- Best AI Competitive Intelligence Tools
- Best LLM Monitoring Platforms
- Best AI Search Benchmarking Solutions
That overlap is disclosed.
Research Infrastructure Does Not Generate a Bonus Vote
When LLM Authority Index is itself being evaluated, its infrastructure role does not create recommendation credit. The recommendation event comes from the external AI platform being studied. For example: If: ChatGPT independently recommends LLM Authority Index that can count as a ChatGPT recommendation. If ChatGPT does not recommend it: LLM Authority Index receives no ChatGPT vote.
The fact that LLM Authority Index may have provided the infrastructure used to capture the response does not create the recommendation.
Raw Platform Output Should Be Preserved
Where practical, the underlying AI responses should be preserved so recommendation extraction can be audited against the original response. This reduces the ability of a related company—or anyone else—to manufacture recommendation performance after the fact.
CiteWorks Studio's Role
CiteWorks Studio contributes practical AI search and marketing subject-matter knowledge. Its role may include:
- Developing useful research categories
- Identifying real-world buyer questions
- Helping distinguish GEO, AEO, AI visibility, citation, and recommendation concepts
- Identifying commercially relevant marketing scenarios
- Providing practical AI search strategy context
- Helping interpret how organizations use AI marketing services
Why CiteWorks Studio's Role Creates a Potential Conflict
CiteWorks Studio itself provides services in areas that AI Marketing Consensus Index may research. Those may include:
- AI search optimization
- GEO
- AI visibility strategy
- Citation and authority strategy
- AI search audits
- Competitive AI search analysis
CiteWorks Studio may therefore naturally fall within the candidate universe for certain studies.
Strategy Input Does Not Determine the Winner
CiteWorks Studio may help identify a useful research question. For example:
Which GEO agencies are best suited to an enterprise company that needs both AI visibility measurement and implementation?
It cannot determine: CiteWorks Studio must rank first in that study. Topic development and ranking outcome are separate.
Commercial Value May Influence Which Questions We Study
AI Marketing Consensus Index is a commercial publication. We may prioritize studies because they have:
- Strong buyer intent
- Significant business relevance
- Affiliate potential
- Lead-generation potential
- Strategic value
- High market interest
CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index may also help us identify important industry questions. That is acceptable. What commercial interest cannot determine is: which company wins the resulting research.
Topic Selection Is Not Ranking Manipulation
There is an important difference between: “This is an important commercial question worth studying.” and: “We need our company to win this study.” The first can influence our editorial calendar. The second cannot influence the underlying research result.
Related Companies May Benefit Commercially
If a user discovers CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index through AI Marketing Consensus Index, the related businesses may potentially receive commercial benefit. That may include:
- Leads
- Referrals
- Customers
- Brand exposure
- Research visibility
- Business opportunities
That potential economic benefit is one reason we disclose the relationship.
Favorable Rankings Are Not Paid Placements
If a related business ranks highly through the published methodology, that position should still be presented as: earned research performance rather than: advertising. However, the related-business relationship should be visibly disclosed.
Paid Promotion Must Be Labeled Separately
If CiteWorks Studio, LLM Authority Index, or another company receives a paid or promotional placement separate from the earned rankings, that placement should be labeled appropriately. Examples:
- Advertisement
- Sponsored
- Paid Placement
Paid promotion should not visually impersonate an earned #1 position.
Related Company Labels
Where practical, ranking tables containing: CiteWorks Studio or: LLM Authority Index should display an appropriate label such as: Related Company or: Related Business with a link to this disclosure. The label should provide transparency without changing the company's research score.
Article-Level Disclosure
When CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index appears in a study, we recommend displaying a concise disclosure near the research results. Suggested language:
Related Business Disclosure: Mark B. Huntley, J.D., the Research Reviewer for AI Marketing Consensus Index, has financial and operational interests associated with CiteWorks Studio and LLM Authority Index. LLM Authority Index also provides research data and measurement infrastructure, while CiteWorks Studio provides AI search strategy and subject-matter support. These relationships do not affect raw AI responses, recommendation counts, ranking calculations, or competitor inclusion.
Full Disclosure →
Homepage Disclosure
The homepage should also make the relationship visible. Recommended language: AI research data and measurement infrastructure provided by LLM Authority Index. AI search strategy and subject-matter support provided by CiteWorks Studio. Research reviewed by Mark B. Huntley, J.D., where indicated. Related-company relationships do not influence underlying AI recommendation counts or ranking calculations.
Footer Disclosure
Recommended persistent footer attribution: AI research data and measurement infrastructure provided by LLM Authority Index. AI search strategy and subject-matter support provided by CiteWorks Studio. Research reviewed by Mark B. Huntley, J.D., where indicated.
Related Business Disclosure →
This disclosure should be visible across the site rather than confined to one policy page.
Recommendation Data and Editorial Opinion Are Separate
Our research architecture is designed to separate:
AI Recommendation Data
What external AI platforms actually recommended.
Verification
Whether material product or service claims are currently supported.
Editorial Analysis
What the research appears to mean.
Reviewer Context
How the findings should be interpreted within the AI marketing market.
Commercial Relationships
Financial or operational relationships involving the publication or related businesses. Those layers may interact editorially, but they should not be treated as the same thing.
Related Companies Do Not Control Corrections
CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index cannot use their relationship with the project to prevent correction of:
- Their own inaccurate product information
- An incorrect ranking calculation
- A mistaken recommendation count
- A competitor's accurate information
Corrections should be based on evidence.
Competitors Receive the Same Correction Rights
A competitor does not need to:
- Pay us
- Advertise
- Become an affiliate
- Purchase data
- Work with CiteWorks Studio
- Work with LLM Authority Index
to request correction of a factual error.
A Business Disagreement Is Not Automatically a Correction
A company may dislike:
- Its ranking
- Its recommendation rate
- A competitor ranking higher
- Our interpretation
- Its classification
That does not automatically make the research incorrect. Corrections require evidence of an actual error.
Ending a Commercial Relationship Should Not Change Research
A company should not lose research credit because it:
- Stops advertising
- Ends a partnership
- Stops working with a related business
- Refuses a commercial proposal
Likewise, starting a commercial relationship should not improve its historical research performance.
Historical Results Should Not Be Sanitized
If CiteWorks Studio or LLM Authority Index performs poorly in an earlier research cycle and better in a later cycle, the earlier result should not be deleted merely because it is commercially inconvenient. Likewise, favorable historical results should not be retroactively inflated. Historical movement is part of the research.
Our Own Companies Are Research Subjects When They Appear
When LLM Authority Index or CiteWorks Studio appears in a study, we believe the most appropriate approach is to treat it as: another research subject with an additional disclosure requirement. Not: a company that must be excluded and not: a company that deserves special treatment.
Independence Does Not Mean No Relationships Exist
AI Marketing Consensus Index should not describe itself as independent in a way that falsely implies:
- No financial relationships
- No related companies
- No commercial interests
- No strategic contributors
Those relationships exist. Our use of terms such as editorial independence refers to the separation between those relationships and the underlying research outcome.
What Editorial Independence Means Here
For AI Marketing Consensus Index, editorial independence means: commercial relationships do not purchase or alter the research result. It does not mean: the publication has no commercial relationships.
This Disclosure Does Not Eliminate Every Potential Bias
No methodology can eliminate every form of judgment. Human decisions remain involved in areas such as:
- Which markets to study
- Which questions to ask
- How to define categories
- How to classify ambiguous AI responses
- Which facts require verification
- How findings are explained
Our objective is to:
- Disclose relevant incentives
- Preserve raw research
- Use consistent rules
- Separate data from interpretation
- Make important methodological decisions public
rather than pretending judgment does not exist.
Why We Believe Transparency Is Better Than Concealment
CiteWorks Studio and LLM Authority Index operate in the same market being studied. Attempting to hide those relationships would make favorable rankings less credible. Publishing the relationships openly allows readers to evaluate the research with the relevant context. The methodology should then stand on its own.
What Readers Should Expect From Us
Readers should expect that:
- Related companies are disclosed
- Open prompts are not seeded with related businesses
- External AI platforms determine the original recommendations
- Recommendation counts are calculated consistently
- Competitors remain visible
- Related companies can lose
- Related companies can win
- Commercial relationships do not create votes
- Material facts are independently checked where practical
- Historical results are preserved
- Corrections are based on evidence
Our Conflict-of-Interest Standard in One Sentence
AI Marketing Consensus Index openly discloses Mark B. Huntley's interests in LLM Authority Index and CiteWorks Studio, permits those companies to appear when external AI systems independently recommend them, and uses the same underlying recommendation and ranking methodology for related companies and their competitors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Mark Huntley have a financial interest in companies that may appear in these rankings?
Yes. Mark B. Huntley, J.D. has financial and operational interests associated with LLM Authority Index and CiteWorks Studio. Both may appear in relevant AI Marketing Consensus Index research.
Does LLM Authority Index provide data for AI Marketing Consensus Index?
Yes. LLM Authority Index provides AI research data and measurement infrastructure supporting the project.
Isn't that a conflict if LLM Authority Index is also ranked?
It creates a potential conflict, which is why the relationship is disclosed. The recommendation vote itself comes from the external AI platform being studied. LLM Authority Index's infrastructure role does not create additional recommendations or ranking weight.
Does CiteWorks Studio help decide what studies to publish?
CiteWorks Studio may contribute AI search strategy, subject-matter knowledge, taxonomy, and research-question input. It may therefore help identify useful questions. It does not determine which company the external AI platforms recommend.
Can Mark change a ranking?
Mark can identify errors in interpretation or data processing that should be corrected. He cannot change a valid AI recommendation count simply because he prefers a different company.
Are CiteWorks Studio and LLM Authority Index automatically included in studies?
No. In standard open recommendation studies, related companies are not automatically seeded into prompts. They must surface through the AI responses to receive recommendation credit.
Can competitors outrank your related businesses?
Yes.
Will you publish that result?
Yes. That is a necessary part of the methodology.
Can one of your related companies rank #1?
Yes, if the independent AI recommendation data supports it. The relationship should then be prominently disclosed.
Do related companies receive affiliate or promotional links?
They may receive links or commercial exposure where appropriate. Any such commercial relationship does not alter the underlying recommendation data.
Can a competitor request a correction?
Yes. Corrections are evaluated based on evidence rather than commercial relationships.
Related Policies
How LLM Authority Index and CiteWorks Studio Contribute →
Advertising & Sponsorship Disclosure →
Mark has financial and operational interests associated with LLM Authority Index and CiteWorks Studio. These relationships do not alter raw AI responses, recommendation counts, recommendation coverage, recommendation position, ranking calculations, competitor inclusion, or historical research.