Need help: How do you brief writers to create content that AI will actually cite? My current briefs aren't working

Your instinct is right - traditional SEO briefs don’t translate to AI visibility.

The fundamental shift:

SEO briefs: “Rank for keyword X” AI briefs: “Be the answer AI wants to cite for question Y”

My AI-optimized brief template:

1. AUDIENCE & INTENT
- Specific audience segment (not just "marketers")
- What they're trying to accomplish
- Search intent category (informational/commercial/etc)

2. THE CORE QUESTION
- The exact question this content answers
- Why someone asks this question
- What they need to understand/do after reading

3. INFORMATION GAIN REQUIREMENTS
- [ ] Original data/research required
- [ ] Expert quote/interview required
- [ ] First-hand experience angle required
- [ ] Unique framework/methodology to present

4. CONTENT STRUCTURE
- Opening: Direct answer in first 50-80 words
- Headers: Written as questions (how AI queries work)
- Required formats: tables, bullet lists, numbered steps
- Sections that need standalone citable summaries

5. COMPETITIVE DIFFERENTIATION
- What existing content lacks
- Our unique angle or expertise
- Information we can provide that competitors can't

6. FORMATTING SPECIFICATIONS
- TL;DR section at top
- Bullet points for key takeaways
- Comparison tables where relevant
- FAQ section at end

7. BRAND VOICE & AUTHOR
- Named author with credentials
- First-person experience where applicable
- Tone and style requirements

This produces fundamentally different content than keyword-focused briefs.

Writer perspective here - this thread is validating.

Briefs I receive that produce AI-citable content:

• Clear question the article answers (not just a keyword)
• Required content elements (tables, lists, specific sections)
• Information gain mandate with specific options
• Access to internal experts for quotes
• Examples of successful AI-cited content to reference

Briefs that don’t work for AI:

• “Write 2000 words about [keyword]”
• Competitor URLs without analysis of what’s missing
• Vague outline without structure requirements
• No unique angle or differentiator specified

What would help me most:

1. Tell me WHAT QUESTION we’re answering
2. Tell me WHAT NEW THING we can contribute
3. Give me ACCESS to experts or data
4. Show me EXAMPLES of structure that works

The best clients share which of their articles actually get AI citations so I can learn from the patterns.

Let me add the AI-specific structural requirements:

What AI needs to cite your content:

1. Direct answer in opening - First 50-80 words should contain THE answer
2. Self-contained sections - Each H2 should be citable independently
3. Clear semantic structure - Headers as questions, not clever phrases
4. Extraction-ready formats - Bullets, numbers, tables for key info
5. Summary elements - TL;DR, key takeaways, conclusion

Brief language I use:

“STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS:

Opening paragraph: Directly answer ‘[question]’ in the first 2-3 sentences.

H2 headers: Write as questions that AI might be asked (e.g., ‘How does X work?’ not ‘Understanding X’)

Key information: Present in bullet points or tables that can be extracted verbatim.

Each section: Should make sense if read in isolation - don’t rely on previous sections for context.

Conclusion: Summarize 3-5 key points in bullet format.”

Writers who follow this structure produce content that gets cited 3x more often.

Practical addition: how to handle AI tool usage in briefs.

This is now essential to address because:

• Writers are using AI for research/drafting
• AI can help or hurt depending on how it’s used
• Fact-checking requirements have changed

My brief section on AI usage:

“AI TOOL GUIDELINES:

Acceptable uses:

• Research assistance and source discovery
• Outline generation and refinement
• Grammar and clarity editing
• Fact-checking verification

Not acceptable:

• Publishing AI-generated drafts without substantial human rewriting
• Using AI-generated statistics without verifying original sources
• Copying AI explanations of complex topics without adding expertise

Requirements:

• All claims must be verified against original sources
• Expert quotes must be from real, verifiable experts
• First-person experience must be genuine human experience
• Flag any sections where you used AI assistance significantly”

This prevents the “AI-written about AI” problem where content is just repackaged AI output.

Adding the review/feedback loop component:

Brief improvement process:

1. Track what gets cited - Use monitoring to see which articles AI platforms reference
2. Analyze patterns - What do cited articles have in common?
3. Update brief template - Add requirements based on what works
4. Give writers feedback - Show them which of their pieces performed

What we learned from tracking:

• Articles with original data got cited 4x more
• First-person experience narratives performed well
• Comparison tables were frequently extracted verbatim
• Generic “best practices” lists rarely got cited

This data directly shapes our brief requirements. We now require at least one original data point per article because we know it works.

Template section I want to add:

COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS

Don’t just list competitor URLs. Actually analyze what they’re missing.

“COMPETITIVE GAPS TO ADDRESS:

Competitor A: Covers basics but lacks [specific missing element] Competitor B: Has data but it’s from 2023 Competitor C: No expert perspective or real-world examples

OUR DIFFERENTIATION:

• We have access to [proprietary data/expert]
• We can provide [unique angle]
• We’re positioned to address [gap] that nobody else covers

SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES:

• This question is commonly asked but poorly answered: [question]
• This format doesn’t exist yet: [proposed format]
• This data hasn’t been updated since: [date]”

Writers armed with this analysis produce genuinely differentiated content.

This thread has completely transformed how I think about content briefs. Here’s my revised approach:

New brief template structure:

1. Core Question (not keyword) - What are we answering?
2. Audience + Intent - Who and why they’re asking
3. Information Gain Requirements - Specific original contributions needed
4. Competitive Gap Analysis - What’s missing that we can provide
5. Structure Specifications - AI-friendly formatting requirements
6. AI Tool Guidelines - How writers should/shouldn’t use AI
7. Author/Expertise Requirements - Who should write this and what credentials needed

Process changes:

1. Monitor which content gets cited to learn what works
2. Feed learnings back into brief requirements
3. Give writers visibility into performance
4. Iterate template based on data

Immediate next steps:

1. Create new brief template based on this thread
2. Set up content citation tracking with Am I Cited
3. Run pilot with 10 articles using new briefs
4. Compare citation rates to old brief approach

Thank you all for the incredible insights. This is exactly what I needed.