About KC AI SEO: Who We Are and What We Publish

Two claims sit in that paragraph, and they are deliberately separated. The firm is new, founded to sell one service to one metropolitan market. The operator experience is eight years in search and three working with AI models, and it predates the firm by every one of those years. Conflating the two would produce the sentence "eight years in business", which is false and checkable, and this site applies the same standard to itself that it applies to the nine competitor pages it audited.

The identity is the agency rather than a named individual. That choice carries a known cost: an answer engine attributes a claim to an entity, and a named author with credentials is the strongest entity to attribute to. The compensation is structural. Methodology is published, the audit's scope is counted, pricing is published in figures, the process states its stages and durations, and the organization carries machine-readable identifiers. Trust is built from what can be checked rather than from a biography.

The Kansas City metropolitan area is a bi-state metropolitan statistical area spanning Missouri and Kansas, recorded on Wikidata as Q2307187. Olathe sits inside it, in Johnson County, Kansas. The telephone number carries the 913 area code, which is the Johnson County code, so the number and the locality corroborate each other rather than pointing at two different places.

Coverage does not stop at the state line. Businesses in Kansas City, Missouri and across Jackson County receive the identical four stages, on the identical terms, as businesses in Johnson County. Delivery runs on the website, the markup and the assistant responses, none of which require a site visit.

Read the table as five statements. Zero of the nine pages emit a Wikidata identifier, which is the machine-readable statement of which entity a business is. Zero publish a check count, so a buyer cannot learn what an audit covers before paying for it. Two publish a price, which means seven do not. One publishes a turnaround. Five carry no form control on the page at all, offering no way to contact anyone from the page being read.

This site publishes all five. The published figures state the price of every stage and the three conditions under which the work is declined. The counts above are the measured ones; observations that were never counted are written as observations and never as a fraction of nine.

Evidence held today falls into three classes: market data for this metropolitan area, the nine-page competitor audit above, and the published method. None of those is a client outcome. Client results exist and are not yet publishable, because each one needs four things before it earns a page — before and after figures with dates, a named client who has consented, screenshots, and the specific change that produced the result. The fourth is what separates a case study from a logo wall, and it is the one most often missing elsewhere.

A firm that publishes outcomes it cannot date is doing the thing this page just measured competitors against. The absence is stated here rather than disguised by omission.

Seven assistants are queried on a split cadence. Four run weekly: Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini. Three run monthly: Claude, Grok and Meta AI. Each is asked a fixed set of buying questions, and the answer records which business it names.

The audit's 40 checks divide across five categories covering crawler access, rendering, structured data, entity clarity and assistant baselines. A check returns a pass, a fail, or a value, and every fail carries the repair that closes it. Work after the audit runs through the four delivery stages, each with a stated duration and an exit criterion.