On May 6, the baseline audit found Insynctive effectively invisible in AI search — 2 of 148 buyer queries surfaced the brand. Two weeks and a 37-page content push later, this re-audit re-runs the identical 150-query panel and measures what changed.
The same 150 buyer queries run every cycle — unchanged. This is the longitudinal ruler. Mutating it would destroy comparability, so the queries are immutable for the engagement lifetime.
+6.6pp means "percentage points gained." Green = improvement, red = regression, gray = no change. Deltas compare the same queries across cycles — not different queries.
The p= value is the probability the observed change is random noise. Below 0.05 = statistically significant (confident it's real). Above 0.05 = directional (the trend is there, but the sample is too small to be sure).
When the platform set changes between cycles, we isolate the platforms present in both and report that subset separately. The stable subset is the honest apples-to-apples comparison; the combined number includes platforms that weren't in the prior cycle.
Each newly-visible query is traced to the page deployed to serve it. ✓ attributed = AI cited the shipped page. ◐ partial = visible but citation couldn't be mapped to a URL. – none = no citation recorded.
Every item in the next plan carries a thread from prior cycles. Carried = still open. Resolved = done and confirmed. Re-investigate = shipped but gap persists. New = surfaced this cycle.
Factors that can make a delta look larger or smaller than the real effect: platform changes (added/removed an LLM), model updates (the AI itself changed), or extraction gaps (citations not captured). These are always disclosed.
This report says "consistent with" — never "caused by." Visibility moved and content shipped on the same dimension and timeline, but model drift and other factors mean we cannot assert strict causation. The evidence chain is: deployed → cited → visible.
What moved, why it moved, and what it means. Start here.
Not "where you stand" — that was the May 6 report's job. This is the change reading: what moved between cycle 1 and cycle 2, and whether the movement is signal or noise.
Yes — the needle moved, and the direction is unambiguous. On the stable ChatGPT + Claude panel — the only true apples-to-apples comparison, because this cycle's panel swapped Perplexity for Gemini — Insynctive went from 1 visible query to 5. That gain is directional, not yet statistically significant (McNemar exact p = 0.22 on 6 discordant queries). The combined all-platform number reads 1.4% → 8.0% and clears the significance bar (McNemar p = 0.013), but newly-added Gemini carries 10 of the 12 visible queries — so the headline overstates the comparable movement. The honest read: real, plan-attributable early progress on a very small base — a foothold, not yet a breakout.
ins_120 and ins_121 — queries that name Insynctive directly — flipped from invisible to visible on all three platforms. ins_120 is also a win. When a buyer searches the company by name, the AI now answers.ins_097 (Insynctive vs PlanSource) — a genuine regression against a competitor surging +31%. The panel added 12 and lost 2; zero queries held visible across both cycles.Every item from the May 6 action plan with shipping status and deploy date.
| May 6 plan item | Layer | Target page / cluster | Status | Deployed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer 2 — Existing-Content Optimization (10 items) | ||||
| ADP Workforce Now integration depth | L2 | /integrations/adp-workforce-now | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Benefits billing reconciliation & carrier connectivity | L2 | /benefits-billing-reconciliation-guide · /carrier-integrations | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Employee Navigator alternatives for brokers | L2 | /compare/employee-navigator-alternatives | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Open-enrollment problem framing | L2 | /premium-benefits-administration (WIX) | Not done | — |
| Payroll-native vs benefits-led comparison | L2 | /hris-vs-hcm · /compare/standalone-hris-vs-integrated | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| White-label broker platform hub | L2 | /white-label-benefits-administration-for-brokers | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Reporting & analytics comparison | L2 | /reporting-analytics · /compare/insynctive-vs-benefitfocus | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Compliance-management content depth | L2 | /compliance · /compliance-at-50-employees | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Configurable HRIS for mid-market | L2 | /hris-for-mid-market | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Document automation & self-service workflows | L2 | /hr-document-automation | Partial | 2026-05-08 |
| Layer 3 — New Content (8 items) | ||||
| Benefits-payroll data-integration void | L3 | /data-integration-hub/ (3 pages) | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Integration-depth comparison & validation proof | L3 | /carrier-integration-roi | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Payroll-integrated benefits shortlisting hub | L3 | /hris-for-mid-market · /hris-vs-hcm | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| CFO TCO model & consensus content | L3 | /resources/benefits-platform-tco-calculator | Shipped | 2026-05-08 |
| Employee decision-support comparison | L3 | /employee-benefits-decision-support | Shipped | 2026-05-14 |
| ACA-compliance comparison page | L3 | /compliance-at-50-employees | Partial | 2026-05-08 |
| Carrier-connectivity head-to-head | L3 | /carrier-integrations | Partial | 2026-05-08 |
| Employee decision-support awareness | L3 | /resources/decision-support-evaluation-checklist | Shipped | 2026-05-14 |
| Layer 1 — Technical Foundation (7 items) | ||||
| Inconsistent heading hierarchy | L1 | WIX marketing pages | Not done | — |
| Uniform sitemap lastmod values | L1 | pages-sitemap.xml | Not done | — |
| Thin / stub content | L1 | /hr-solutions-product-overview | Partial | 2026-05-08 |
| Meta & Open Graph tags | L1 | site-wide | Not done | — |
| Near-duplicate pages | L1 | /our-clients vs /serviceproviders | Not done | — |
| Schema markup | L1 | comparison & FAQ pages | Not done | — |
| Wix CSR verification | L1 | platform-wide | Not done | — |
The cross-cutting read. Per-dimension detail lives in Part B; this section is the pattern across dimensions.
| Newly-visible query | Cluster | Page shipped | Deployed | Cited back? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ins_120 Insynctive customer reviews | Validation | homepage · /benefits-administration-for-brokers | 2026-05-08 | ✓ attributed |
ins_121 Insynctive limitations for a CFO | Validation | /hris-for-mid-market · /data-integration-hub | 2026-05-08 | ✓ attributed |
ins_142 Evaluation criteria multi-tenant | Artifact | /data-integration-hub/cfo-vendor-requirements | 2026-05-08 | ✓ attributed |
ins_054 Best HRIS for strict ACA & I-9 | Shortlisting | /hris-for-mid-market | 2026-05-08 | ✓ attributed |
ins_051 Platforms with deep ADP integration | Shortlisting | /integrations/adp-workforce-now | 2026-05-08 | – none recorded |
ins_055 White-label HR/benefits for TPAs | Shortlisting | /white-label-benefits-administration-for-brokers | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_031 HRIS evaluation checklist | Requirements | /hris-buyers-guide · /hris-for-mid-market | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_034 Compliance requirements checklist | Requirements | /compliance-at-50-employees | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_042 Configurability requirements | Requirements | /hris-for-mid-market | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_044 Document-workflow features | Requirements | /hr-document-automation | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_012 Hidden costs separate benefits + payroll | Problem ID | /data-integration-hub/ explainers | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
ins_023 Configurable HRIS vs rigid SaaS | Solution Expl. | /hris-for-mid-market | 2026-05-08 | ◐ Gemini · no URL |
SignalThe clearest effect is in the requirements-building and shortlisting clusters. Requirements-building visibility tripled (1/16 → 4/16) and shortlisting moved from 0/23 to 3/25. Both are mid-funnel "I am actively evaluating" stages, and both are exactly where the May 8 batch concentrated.
The branded-validation win is the strongest single result. ins_120 and ins_121 name Insynctive directly and now surface on all three platforms. The validation cluster (0/24 → 2/24) means an AI asked about Insynctive by name now has Insynctive-sourced material to answer with.
WatchComparison-stage visibility went to zero (1/33 → 0/33). The lost query, ins_097 ("Insynctive vs PlanSource"), is a head-to-head comparison, and PlanSource is the story: its mention volume climbed from 94 to 123 (+31%). Insynctive shipped comparisons against Employee Navigator, Benefitfocus and Selerix — but not against PlanSource.
CaveatThe platform panel changed. Cycle 1 ran ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity; cycle 2 ran ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Gemini alone accounts for 10 of the 12 visible queries. The defensible comparison is the stable ChatGPT + Claude subset: 1 → 5 queries, directional but not significant (McNemar p = 0.22).
Model versions are not recorded. A model update inside the two-week window is indistinguishable from a content effect.
NotePlanSource is the surprise competitor of the cycle — the fastest-rising vendor in the category, now dominating the citation index. Gusto appeared for the first time. Insynctive opened new positive head-to-head records against BambooHR and Paycor. Full surprise-competitor data in B12.
These findings inform Part C — The Next Plan below.
18 baseline sections, delta-annotated. Click any section to expand.
| Vendor | May 6 | May 21 | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee Navigator | 31.6% (#1) | 29.4% (#1) | −2.2pp |
| Rippling | 14.8% (#3) | 15.5% (#2) | +0.7pp |
| Selerix | 17.2% (#2) | 13.9% (#3) | −3.3pp |
| Insynctive | 3.4% (#9) | 4.9% (#8) | +1.5pp · ▲1 |
| Vendor | May 6 | May 21 | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| PlanSource | 94 | 123 | +29 (+31%) |
| bswift | 36 | 55 | +19 |
| ADP | 22 | 60 | +38 |
| Workday | — | 36 | new |
Sections B2, B6–B8, B10–B11, B13–B18 follow the same pattern — omitted from mockup for brevity. Full report renders all 18.
Lineage-tagged. Every item carries its thread across cycles.
Every item carries a lineage tag. New items include full execution briefs. Re-investigate items include updated diagnosis. Carried items reference the original brief. Resolved items are confirmations — hover to expand.
The 37 hub pages that drove visibility gains live only in sitemap-geo.xml, not the primary /sitemap.xml index. A crawler starting from either entry point sees only part of the site. One-line fix, outsized crawl-coverage impact.
<sitemap><loc>https://www.insynctive.com/sitemap-geo.xml</loc></sitemap> to /sitemap.xmlSitemap: https://www.insynctive.com/sitemap.xml to robots.txt alongside existing sitemap-geo.xml declarationcurl -s https://www.insynctive.com/sitemap.xml | grep sitemap-geo30 minutes. Engineering only. No content changes.
Every May 6 L1 item is still open. D1 multiple-H1, D3 uniform sitemap lastmod, D4 schema verification, D5 canonical-tag audit (now higher-stakes with four WIX-vs-hub topic-overlap pairs), D6 WIX CSR confirmation. Also carried: thin content on /hr-solutions-product-overview and near-duplicate /our-clients vs /serviceproviders.
See May 6 baseline report, Layer 1 items #12–#14, #22–#25. All specifications and fix instructions carry forward unchanged. Sequence first in cycle 3 — this is the untested lever and gates crawl speed for everything the content team ships.
1–2 weeks cumulative. Engineering team. D1 and D3 are WIX platform constraints — may require Wix Support escalation.
PlanSource mentions rose 31%, domain jumped to #2 in citations, and it owns the one query Insynctive lost (ins_097). The May 6 plan built comparisons against Employee Navigator, Benefitfocus and Selerix — but not PlanSource, the competitor gaining fastest.
ins_097ins_073ins_074ins_083ins_091
Comparison-stage queries where PlanSource appears as winner or primary mention. ins_097 is the regressed query — Insynctive was visible in cycle 1, lost to PlanSource in cycle 2.
/compare/insynctive-vs-plansource — structured comparison page following the Employee Navigator comparison formatins_120, ins_121). Structured comparison tables with cited data points perform well.1–2 weeks. Content team. Requires competitive research pass on PlanSource positioning.
ins_120 and ins_121 — branded queries — now surface on all three platforms. This is the most valuable position Insynctive holds. On this cycle's evidence, nothing stays visible by default — both May 6 wins regressed. Defend deliberately.
ins_120ins_121
ins_120: "Insynctive customer reviews — what do brokerages actually say" · ins_121: "Insynctive limitations a CFO should know before signing"
/reviews or /customer-stories page that consolidates social proof — AI models will prefer a single authoritative page over scattered mentionsins_121 asks for limitations; if Insynctive doesn't answer it, competitors willRe-check ins_120 and ins_121 every cycle. If either regresses, escalate immediately — branded-query visibility is the foundation everything else compounds on.
1 week. Content team + client (for case study sourcing).
/carrier-integrations and /reporting-analytics shipped May 8. Carrier connectivity visibility stayed at 0/5, reporting at 0/5. Three hypotheses — investigate before deciding whether to rewrite or wait.
ins_058ins_059ins_060ins_061ins_062
ins_108ins_109ins_110ins_111ins_112
sitemap-geo.xml), which is excluded from the primary sitemap index (defect D2). Fixing D2 may unblock pickup. This is the most likely explanation for Gemini specifically.Fix D2 (sitemap index) first. Wait one cycle. If still dark after D2 fix + one cycle, re-audit page content against query intent and rewrite.
Open Enrollment Workflows held at 0/12 and Consensus Creation at 0/12. No content shipped. Carried from May 6.
See May 6 baseline report, NIO #4 (CFO TCO model — partially shipped) and L2 Priority #9 (Open Enrollment Workflows — not done). The open-enrollment content gap is now the largest unaddressed cluster by query count.
Hub page /hr-document-automation shipped May 8, but the named on-page edits from the original L2 brief (WIX page /document-automation-process-management) are unconfirmed. Document automation visibility moved off zero (0% → 20.0%) — the hub page is working, but the WIX page still renders two H1s and thin content. Complete the original brief or redirect.
/compliance-at-50-employees shipped May 8 and compliance management visibility moved off zero (0% → 28.6%). The comparison-format companion page specified in the original NIO brief was not completed. Finish the comparison page to cover the head-to-head queries in this cluster.
ContinuityOf the 25 May 6 items: 13 resolved or substantially shipped, 8 carried (6 L1 not done + open-enrollment + white-label), 2 partial (document automation + ACA comparison), 2 re-investigate (carrier + reporting). Cycle 3 adds 4 new items. Total cycle 3 plan: 10 items. No item silently dropped or re-created.
All items ranked by commercial impact × implementation speed, re-ranked for this cycle's data. New items are interleaved with carried items based on updated priority.
| Rank | Item | Layer | Lineage | Owner | Queries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Add GEO hub to primary sitemap index | L1 | New | Engineering | all |
| 2 | Ship L1 defect register (D1, D3–D6) | L1 | Carried | Engineering | all |
| 3 | PlanSource head-to-head comparison | L3 | New | Content | 5 |
| 4 | Defend branded-validation beachhead | L3 | New | Content | 2 |
| 5 | Re-investigate carrier connectivity + reporting | L2 | Re-inv | Content | 10 |
| 6 | Open-enrollment cluster | L3 | Carried | Content | 12 |
| 7 | White-label broker platform depth | L2 | Carried | Content | 44 |
| 8 | Document automation — complete original brief | L2 | Partial | Content | 5 |
| 9 | ACA-compliance comparison page | L3 | Partial | Content | 7 |
OrderEngineering goes first this cycle — the sitemap fix (#1) should ship before the content team starts new pages, so crawlers can discover the new content from day one. PlanSource comparison (#3) and branded-validation defense (#4) are parallel and can start immediately after the sitemap fix lands.
The same 150 buyer queries were run in both cycles. Cycle 1 returned usable responses for 148; the 2 missing queries are excluded from paired tests.
Paired data, tested with McNemar's exact test on per-query visible/not-visible flips. Combined panel: p = 0.013. Stable subset: p = 0.22. Panel-level deltas reportable; cluster-level directional only.
Visibility delta is primary evidence. Citation is corroboration. Causal language calibrated to evidence strength — "consistent with," never "caused by."
Starting cycle 3, the platform set (ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini) will be locked for the engagement lifetime — no additions or swaps. Every query result will be tagged with the exact model version it ran against. These two changes eliminate the platform-drift and model-drift confounders that required caveats in this report.