AI thought my company was a typo. Here's what I measured.

A developer at the brand-monitoring startup Luxcerta ran the company's own AI-visibility method on its week-old brand and found that Gemini, with web grounding enabled, misidentified "Luxcerta" as a typo for the French geospatial firm LuxCarta and flagged luxcerta.com as possibly a parked or phishing domain, while Google Search's AI Overview described the company correctly on the same day. After adding crawlable, machine-readable entity anchors such as sameAs links, the correct one-sentence definition appeared stably on Google's AI Overview within about a week. A separate survey of 45 answers across three platforms about dental implant clinics in greater Taipei found AI answers citing one clinic's website as a source while recommending a different clinic.

When I launched Luxcerta https://luxcerta.com , I did the obvious vanity check: I asked an AI what it knew about my company. It told me I had probably misspelled something. Gemini, with web grounding on, decided "Luxcerta" was most likely a typo for LuxCarta — a French geospatial-data firm that has been around for decades. When I asked specifically about luxcerta.com , it suggested the domain was "possibly a parked domain or a phishing site." That stung. But it was also the single most useful data point I could have asked for — because measuring exactly this is what Luxcerta does. So I turned the tool on myself and wrote down the numbers. One line: Luxcerta measures how AI models talk about a brand. Not your Google ranking — your standing inside AI answers . When someone asks ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini a question in your category, are you named, skipped, or misquoted? We count it with a fixed method you can reproduce yourself. Which meant I had no excuse not to run the method on my own week-old brand. Nothing fancy, and that's the point — the whole pitch is that you can repeat it. Result, day 0: | Metric | Count | |---|---| | Answers that mentioned Luxcerta the real one | 0 / 10 | | Answers that cited luxcerta.com | 0 / 10 | | Answers that retrieved my site at all | 0 / 10 | Zero across the board. Worse than zero, actually: the name was being actively reassigned to an established company with a near-identical spelling, and my domain was being guessed as hostile. The same day, Google Search's AI Overview — a different product, different retrieval pipeline — already described Luxcerta correctly: "an independent studio that focuses on GEO monitoring." It had eaten my homepage's meta description and structured data and got it right. So on one single day, from one company: Google Search's AI knew exactly who I was, and Gemini's grounded answers thought I was a typo. Two AI surfaces, opposite verdicts, same underlying brand. That gap is the phenomenon the product measures. "Is AI right about you" has no single answer — it has one answer per surface, and they disagree more than anyone expects. I wanted the grounded models to have something authoritative to retrieve, so I gave them a few crawlable, machine-readable anchors that all agreed on one definition of the entity: sameAs links tying the domains together. Honesty note, because it's the whole brand: I changed several things at once and then watched. This is a case study of one brand over one week, not a controlled experiment. I can tell you the inputs and the measured outputs; I can't hand you a clean attribution to any single lever. One week later, the same identity query on Google's AI Overview returns, stably: Luxcerta is an independent studio that focuses on GEO Monitoring, which measures how artificial intelligence platforms talk about and represent a brand. No more LuxCarta. The knowledge panel points at my own "Our Name" page. Organic result 1 is the site. The reassignment to the French firm is gone from that surface. Roughly a week, from "probably a typo / possibly phishing" to a correct, stable, one-sentence definition — with no backlinks bought and no PR, just a handful of crawlable nodes that agreed on who the entity was. I'm a brand-new company, so my invisibility is unsurprising. But the exact same mechanism hits established local businesses that simply have a low signal footprint online — and there the stakes are real. In our first public category survey — dental implant clinics in greater Taipei, 15 real user questions × 3 fresh conversations each, 45 answers per platform — the clearest finding was this: the AI reads a clinic's own website, then recommends a different clinic. In the same answer, it cited clinic A's site as a source and put clinic B on the recommendation list. The content got consumed as category reference material; the credit went elsewhere. Run the same questions on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini and you get three almost non-overlapping lists. The full survey is here. https://geo.luxcerta.com/survey/taipei-implant/ A clinic owner has no way to see any of that from the outside. Neither did I, until I counted. That last section is not a disclaimer bolted on at the end. It's the product. The one thing I sell is refusing to dress up an inference as a measurement — what I didn't measure, I don't claim. I'm the founder of Luxcerta https://luxcerta.com , an independent studio measuring how AI models represent brands. If you want to know what AI currently says about yours — named, skipped, or misquoted — every number I'd send you is one you can verify yourself in about two minutes.