Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Your page ranks and still doesn't get quoted. Sai rewrites it against how AI assistants actually pick sources — answer up top, extractable structure, real FAQs — without touching your voice.
A page can sit in the top three for its keyword and never once appear in an AI-generated answer about that topic. This is not a bug in how you did SEO. It is a consequence of the two systems solving different problems.
A search engine returns a list and lets the reader choose. A generative answer chooses on the reader's behalf — it selects a handful of sources, synthesizes them into one response, and attributes what it used. Selection favors different qualities than ranking does. Comprehensiveness and internal links win rankings. Being quotable wins citations.
So the work is not more SEO. It is a specific kind of editing, applied to pages you already have.
The pages that lose citations are usually not weak pages. They are pages written for a human who has committed to reading, which is a reasonable thing to optimize for and produces a predictable set of problems:
The prompt targets four things, and the order matters — each one addresses a different stage of how a source gets selected and used.
A direct answer near the top, 40–60 words. This is the single highest-leverage change. That length is not arbitrary: it is long enough to be a complete answer and short enough to be quoted whole. It should read as a standalone response to the question the page exists to answer, placed before any context or narrative. Readers benefit too — most of them wanted that paragraph and were going to scroll for it anyway.
Headings that describe content. Every H2 and H3 becomes a statement of what the section contains, phrased close to how someone would ask about it. This is what makes a page navigable in chunks rather than only as a whole, and it lets a model take the one section it needs without the surrounding material.
An FAQ section with 3–5 real questions. Question-and-answer pairs are the most directly extractable format that exists, and they map cleanly onto schema markup. The requirement is that the questions be real ones — phrased as a person would speak them, answering something the body genuinely does not already cover. Inventing questions to fill a template produces a section that helps nobody and reads as padding.
Inline definitions for jargon. A term defined in the sentence where it first appears makes every passage containing it independently quotable. This is a small edit with outsized effect, because it converts unusable paragraphs into usable ones without restructuring anything.
The instruction not to change brand voice is doing real work. The default failure of any AI rewrite is homogenization — the page comes back structurally improved and tonally generic, and now it sounds like everything else, which is its own kind of invisibility.
Holding voice constant means the edit is structural: what moves, what gets stated plainly, what gets defined, what gets added at the end. Sentences that already work are left alone. The output is your page, reorganized — not a new page about the same subject.
Where original material still matters
Structural editing gets a page considered. It does not, on its own, make a page worth citing over an equally well-structured competitor.
What breaks that tie is having something of your own: data nobody else has published, a framework, a position taken clearly enough to disagree with, a result from your own work. If a page has none of that, the rewrite will improve its odds and cap them. Worth knowing before you run this across an entire site — the pages that gain most are the ones with something real inside a bad structure, and those are where to start.
Name the specific question you want the page to own and the answer paragraph will be written against it rather than a general summary. If you have house style rules — sentence length, forbidden words, how you refer to your product — paste them in, since "keep the brand voice" is inferred from the page itself and explicit rules hold better. For a page where you already know the weak section, say so and the rewrite will concentrate there instead of touching everything evenly. And if you need the output as Markdown or in your CMS's format rather than HTML, ask for it directly.