The strongest proof we can offer: we wrote the methodology out in the open, we built the audit, and we run it on our own website every month. The score above is what the tool told us this month — refreshed monthly.
Ahead of most. Vulnerable to the next competitor that figures it out.
Last audited: 2026-05-22 · Run the same FACTS Score on your site
Before we made the 17 fixes, Brandermind itself scored 47/100 — squarely in the Developing tier. Plenty of marketing copy about AI; very few of the signals AI agents actually look for.
The fixes were the same ones we now do for clients: Schema.org graph repairs, FAQ markup on every service and industry page, llms.txt, per-route lastmod, AggregateRating wired into Organization schema, sameAs links to verified profiles.
The result: a 31-point lift into Competitive tier — and a 8-point drop the day we shipped probes for three new 2026 cross-platform agent standards (A2A, UCP, WebMCP). We're publishing the drop in the open rather than freezing the rubric to keep the number high. The same playbook works on your site.
Five pillars. 20 points each.
The machine-readable facts that tell AI who you are, what you do, and where you work.
Clear, lift-ready answers to the questions your buyers actually ask.
The machine-readable doorways that let AI tools find, read, and do business with your site.
Reviews, ratings, and proof in machine-readable form, so AI can verify you're worth recommending.
Honest, recent signals that tell AI you're still here — and still right.
We didn't grade ourselves. The same public audit engine that scores client sites scored this one. The methodology is published, the engine is open, and your audit uses the same scorecard.