Citations is the plane where rivals are richest and Bliss is thinnest today — 13 of 15 features are observation-only Gaps across the tracker field. But every one of them just watches. None audits NAP/entity consistency and hands back deployable citation-claiming code. That gap is the build.

Weights sum to 100 — (82·25 + 70·20 + 25·22 + 68·18 + 22·15) ÷ 100 = 56. Each sub-score is computed from live data — hub HTTP status, the Wikidata/Wikipedia/Google-KG entity record, a 4-engine fact probe, the AI Overview + Perplexity citation pulls, and the real Semrush backlink export (inbound authority graph, AS 69). Owner-only and still-gated signals (review content behind 403s, 200M-scale source taxonomy, named inbound .edu citers) are excluded from the score, not faked — see the Method ledger.

These are the platforms AI models read when building an entity picture. Anthropic is on every one. Eight return a clean 200; three review platforms sit behind a 403 — present, but their contents can't be verified (and they show 0 confirmed reviews, the one real presence gap).

Gated (403) ≠ absent — the profile URL resolves but the platform blocks server reads, so we mark it present-but-unverified rather than claim a clean check we don't have. The three gated hubs are all review surfaces; none of them surfaced a single review in the entity SERP, so third-party review presence = 0 confirmed.

Most engines run ungrounded — they describe Anthropic from training memory and cite nothing. Only the two grounded surfaces attach links, and when they do, they overwhelmingly reach for someone else's page:

The fear line: across the SERP that feeds these answers, Reddit owns the #1 organic slot on 13 of 22 queries and sits in the top-3 on 17 — while anthropic.com ranks in the top-100 on only 3 (its own inventions: constitutional AI, MCP, a Claude-coding term). When AI cites a source about the AI industry, a Reddit thread is 3–7× more likely to be that source than your own site.

Earned media is strong (10 tier-1 outlets) and sentiment is clean (0 negative) — this is a reach problem, not a perception one. The weakness is owned (your own pages rarely win the citation) and review (zero), the two tiers you can most directly act on.

This is the cite-09 gap→outreach list. 160,074 total prospect domains were parsed from the real Semrush Backlink-Gap export (named .edu/.gov + opportunity-scored), then scoped to the highest-leverage targets here. At full citation-mention data (200M scale) it becomes a per-domain "cites your competitors, not you" target list with draft outreach — the loop, not just the list.

Every competitor reports what the AI cited. Bliss does that and closes the loop — audit the entity's NAP consistency, find the missing/contradictory citations, then generate the schema and listings that claim them. That's the absorb-and-surpass: the one feature on the plane nobody else ships, on the plane where everyone else is deepest.

Why Citations is its own plane. The canonical four-plane model folds citation outcome into AI Visibility — that screen owns "are you cited and how do they talk about you." This plane owns the layer underneath: presence & control — where your entity is listed, whether every source agrees, who wins the citation, and the deployable fixes to claim it. AI Visibility measures the result; Citations audits the supply chain that produces it.