Most AI visibility tools focus on technical optimization: tracking mentions, improving discoverability, or managing structured data signals.

GPS operates at a more strategic level. It analyzes not just whether an organization or issue appears in AI outputs, but how it is framed, whether its position is treated as credible, how it compares against opposing coalitions, and where narrative vulnerabilities may emerge before a hearing, vote, or filing deadline.

Crucially, GPS is not a self-serve software dashboard. Every audit is interpreted by KP consultants who understand Sacramento: the Capitol, the agencies, the regulators, coalition dynamics, and the press that covers them.

This is not simply “AI SEO” or “GEO.” It is strategic positioning for the AI era of California policymaking.

The audit engine simultaneously queries major AI platforms including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity.

The system runs repeated audits across multiple stakeholder perspectives (legislators, regulators, journalists, coalition partners, and opposing advocates), query categories, and competitive scenarios, generating large-scale comparative intelligence on how an issue or organization is represented.

GPS analyzes factors including:

–    Discoverability across the questions your stakeholders are actually asking

–    Endorsement and how often AI recommends you over the alternative

–    Perception quality and whose framing AI repeats

–    Information accuracy and whether AI gets your record right

–    Competitive and coalition positioning against rivals and opposing interests

–    Citation and source intelligence behind what AI is drawing from

–    Reputational risk exposure and whether controversy travels with you

The platform can also incorporate technical AEO (AI Engine Optimization) analysis of a client's website and public materials.

GPS operates at significant scale. A standard audit captures around 250,000 signals across thousands of AI-generated responses.

For more complex, multi-issue engagements, the platform can scale to more than one million data points across multiple AI systems, stakeholder simulations, and repeated audit runs.

This lets GPS move beyond anecdotal prompt testing and produce statistically meaningful insight into how AI systems consistently position a bill, organization, or issue over the course of a session or rulemaking period.

AI systems generate enormous amounts of data, but data alone doesn't provide strategic judgment.

A competitor or opposing-coalition advantage, a subtle framing bias, or a recurring factual error can carry very different weight depending on where a bill sits in the legislative calendar, who's in the room, or how a regulatory proceeding is structured.

That is why GPS pairs Pagefield's auditing technology with KP's Sacramento expertise. The KP team interprets findings in context, identifies what genuinely matters to a live fight, and builds recommendations that go beyond technical optimization.

The technology identifies the patterns. KP determines what they mean for your strategy.

Yes, but not through simplistic prompt manipulation tactics.

Generative AI systems increasingly rely on authority, consistency, citation quality, digital credibility, and broader reputation signals when constructing responses. GPS helps clients understand which signals are shaping AI narratives around their issue, and where strategic intervention is most likely to improve outcomes.

That may involve messaging, testimony, coalition materials, content strategy, media positioning, or technical optimization of a client's own digital footprint.

The objective is not to “game” AI systems. It is to make sure your position is represented accurately, credibly, and competitively within them.

GPS is particularly valuable for organizations, coalitions, and campaigns where reputation and narrative materially affect legislative, regulatory, or electoral outcomes.

That includes trade associations and coalitions, regulated industries, healthcare organizations, water and energy interests, ballot measure committees, and any client operating in a politically or reputationally sensitive policy environment.

Any client whose legislators, regulators, journalists, or voters increasingly rely on AI-generated summaries and comparisons should understand how those systems are shaping perception of their issue.

AI systems are rapidly becoming a new layer of influence between organizations and the people who decide their fate at the Capitol. Increasingly, staff, regulators, and voters encounter an AI-generated summary of an issue before they read a bill file, attend a hearing, or hear directly from a client.

That means AI systems are already shaping discoverability, credibility, and narrative advantage, often without the organizations involved realizing it.

GPS gives clients visibility into that emerging layer of influence, combining enterprise-scale AI intelligence with the Sacramento expertise needed to shape what AI says next.

At the center of every audit sits the GPS Score: a proprietary benchmark that measures how generative AI systems collectively represent an organization or issue.

Like a polling number, it reflects the cumulative forces shaping discoverability, framing, and credibility across AI platforms, and it moves as those forces change over the course of a session or campaign.

But the score is only the starting point. GPS shows what is driving performance, positively and negatively, and where the most important risks, gaps, and opportunities sit. KP then translates those findings into a focused program of recommendations designed to strengthen positioning across successive audit cycles.

There are five dimensions that make up the GPS Score:

–    Discovery & Advocacy – When someone asks AI a broad question without naming you specifically, do you come up? This is the difference between being part of the conversation and being invisible.

–    Perception Quality – When AI does mention you, how are you described? A strong score means AI repeats your framing, even in contested territory.

–    Risk Resilience – Does AI volunteer controversies or your opposition's arguments without being asked? A good score here means AI isn't leading with your worst moment.

–    Competitive Position – When AI is asked to compare you against a rival industry or opposing coalition, does it treat you as the authority or the footnote? This is the head-to-head dimension.

–    Information Accuracy – Is what AI says about you actually true? This catches hallucinated facts, wrong details, and misattributed positions or affiliations.

GPS also looks at a client's current AI Engine Optimization (AEO), auditing their website and sources like Wikipedia. It asks: is your digital presence technically built so AI can find, read, and cite it?

All prompts are editable and customizable. That said, the system has been calibrated to cover a meaningful test area and to simulate the range of ways legislators, staff, journalists, and voters actually ask AI about an issue, so we encourage clients to stick close to the recommended scope of queries.

Margins of error tell us how confident we can be in the scores an audit produces. A higher margin of error is a reasonable tradeoff when all you need is a fast, directional read on where you stand: enough to spot emerging issues and shape an initial response ahead of a hearing or filing deadline.

Lower margins of error are recommended for findings with major strategic implications, or for data you may want to make public. At plus or minus 4 percent, GPS delivers a high-confidence analysis built for board-level decisions, regulatory engagement, and long-term advocacy strategy.