I built the diagnostic that runs my firm’s lead generation. Then I took a number out of it that I could not defend.

It reports how much of a facility’s search traffic is the wrong reader, and where the pages built for someone ready to call actually rank.

What it reports

A facility’s marketing report usually says whether traffic went up. This tool scores the viability of that traffic for conversion.

It pulls every page on the domain that ranks for anything, classifies each page by the reader it serves, and reports what share of non-branded search traffic each group receives. The groups are ones an admissions director would recognize on sight: someone reading about a substance, someone comparing options, someone ready to call. It then locates where the pages written for that last group actually rank, and against whom.

The output is a funnel viability statement. When the traffic arriving is mostly people reading out of curiosity, the site is producing volume that never enters the admissions funnel, while the residential and detox pages sit below where families look. That is a defect, and it prices out in admits.

A second report runs the same question against AI assistants. When a family asks for treatment in this market, how often does the facility get named, how often is its own site the source AI used, and does the AI assistant recognize the facility at all when asked by name.

I conceptualized, built, and deployed it end to end. Both funnels are live in production today.

The output

Both reports below came off the production pipeline. The facility, data, and links in them are invented, though they reconcile similarly to verified outputs. Real reports are graded assessments of real operators, and they belong to those operators.

Read the full search report
The search diagnostic, cropped to its verdict. The headline is generated from the grades rather than written, and the report states on its own face that these are third-party estimates that can differ from a facility’s Search Console. The sidebar reports what the run actually did.
Read the full AI visibility report
The AI visibility report. Same facility, same date, a different surface. Discovery, citation, and brand recall are counted separately because they fail separately, and a facility can score well on the third while scoring near zero on the first two.

Both are clipped to keep this page readable. Nothing in them was edited to fit; the full renders are one click away.

Checking it against Search Console

The tool has produced 46 audit reports across eleven real behavioral-health properties, plus five validation runs on the AI citation side. Most of those ran through the no-analytics path, which is the one that matters commercially. Typically, a prospect will not hand over Search Console access to a firm they have not hired, so the estimate has to stand on third-party data.

In late May I had Search Console access for three of those operators. I ran the estimate against what their own data recorded.

The verdict held on all three. On one of them the real data said the problem was larger than the tool had reported.

The per-page traffic estimate did not hold. For pages ranking in positions three through eight on informational searches, the third-party model was overstating traffic by thirty to sixty times what Search Console recorded.

So I took the per-page number out of the client-facing report. It sits behind a flag that is still off today. The reasoning was narrow. That number was the one figure a prospect could check against their own Search Console, and the first one who did would have caught me overstating.

After the correction, two properties’ grades got worse and one healthy property kept its healthy verdict. That last part is what told me the rule discriminates rather than lowering every score it touches.

What this does not tell you

It was built as my firm’s lead generation engine, validated against eleven real operators including three I could check against their own Search Console, shipped, and it runs itself.

It does not tell an operator what to do about the gap. It tells them the gap exists, how large it is against the local competitive set, and which pages are on the wrong side of it. Closing it is a different engagement and a longer one.

Run it on whatever facility you want

The reports above are the argument. This is the part that settles it. Both funnels are live right now, and neither one asks you for anything I would have to be involved in.

Put in a domain. Yours, a competitor’s, one you are looking at buying. The same pipeline that produced the two reports above will run against it and send you what it finds.

divergent.digital/diagnosticdivergent.digital/ai/scan