Web · Workflow micro-SaaS

Mention-to-Action: narrow B2B AI visibility QA

Track a fixed prompt panel; preserve repeated-run variance; map citations to verifiable factual gaps; produce approved correction tasks rather than ranking promises.

Who pays and who might buy?

Customer: Specialist B2B agencies with repeat client reporting

Acquirer hypothesis: SEO software vendor or agency owner with a distribution base

Acquisition motives: Strategic capability tuck-in · Market-entry shortcut

Minimum proof to seek

5 paying agencies; 20 client projects; reproducible measurement on a fixed panel; >=50% reporting-time reduction; one buyer-confirmed unmet workflow.

Competition and stop rule

Crowded AEO tools already exist, including the acquired examples. Another generic tracker is not differentiated.

Stop when: Stop if agents cannot produce repeatable evidence, data collection breaches provider terms or buyers only want vanity visibility scores.

Different tiers, different businesses

A $1k–$10k reporting utility can transfer on replacement value. A $10k–$50k business needs paying agencies and a repeatable, source-linked workflow; traffic or claimed AI visibility alone is not value evidence.

Price against verified operating profit OR a buyer-confirmed payback/buy-versus-build case. The target price is a negotiation hypothesis, not a valuation.

The $1m version needs recurring agency accounts, stable evaluations and independent fulfillment. At $10m, a marketing suite may acquire distinctive technology, customer workflow and integration fit, as adjacent recorded deals suggest. At $100m, broad distribution or platform-level intelligence is needed. Generic monitoring has strong substitutes, so test disconfirming evidence early. These are distinct future business models, not 30–90-day valuation forecasts. The economics lab backsolves the selected price only after its assumptions are accepted.