Executive overview
Non-branded recommendation rates
Visibility trend vs market
Priority gaps by engineering intent
Leadership briefing: potential opportunities
Build a buyer-intent map linking engineering problems to MSC products and independently verifiable technical proof.
Verify product identity, domain transitions, and knowledge preservation across Cadence and legacy MSC/Hexagon properties.
Investigate why Ansys, Siemens, or Dassault are selected for comparable questions, then implement targeted improvements.
Recommendation rate by product
Comparison context
Example vendor scorecard
| Vendor | Recommendation | Top 3 placement | Cited presence | Role in buyer journey |
|---|
Representative buying journeys
Category clarity, credibility, independent mentions, capabilities and limitations.
Verified distinctions, reproducible examples, balanced comparison frameworks.
Detailed technical docs, working examples, version clarity and appropriate linking.
Example evaluation records
| Buyer prompt | Product | Intent | Illustrative answer lead | Cadence | Inspect |
|---|
How to distinguish mention from recommendation
"MSC Nastran is one of several longstanding structural solvers."
"For this aeroelastic use case, evaluate MSC Nastran alongside OptiStruct."
"My first shortlist would include MSC Nastran due to the specified capability."
Simulated citation source mix
Domain transition / identity map
Export indexed legacy docs and group by product, technical topic, traffic and link relevance.
Record status codes, redirect chains, canonicals, crawl access and equivalent new destinations.
Inspect owner naming and technical version consistency across document and product levels.
Example citation intelligence rows
| Prompt topic | Cited source type | Example observed weakness | Proposed improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonlinear rubber contact | Competitor product guide | Cadence comparison not cited | Publish SME-validated contact analysis guide |
| Suspension multibody simulation | Independent engineering article | Adams omitted from shortlist | Provide reproducible suspension benchmark and technical case study |
| MSC Nastran ownership | Legacy documentation | Hexagon attribution ambiguity | Audit authoritativeness, redirects and ownership explanation |
Prioritized remediation backlog
| Priority | Improvement | Product | Evidence type | Owner | Status | Detail |
|---|
Example remediation process
Illustrative work package
120 approved prompts and product/vendor mapping.
Repeatable runs with raw answer and citation storage.
Top 20 visibility gaps reviewed for actionable causes.
Technical audit, owners, acceptance criteria and retest protocol.
Definitions
Eligible answers endorsing a vendor for a use case / total eligible responses. Multiple vendors may be recommended.
Mentions or recommendations where the prompt does not name Cadence, MSC or product aliases.
Citations to a domain group / relevant citations returned. This is not the same as share of model training data.
Correct current vendor attribution / answers explicitly answering ownership-related questions.
Quality controls
Log locale, date, model, search grounding mode, prompt text, response, citation links, and test version.
API responses are not automatically equivalent to ChatGPT or Gemini consumer search experiences. Record each surface accurately.
Have CAE SMEs approve prompt relevance and review capability claims; audit a sample of AI-based answer labels.
Keep a fixed baseline cohort and an unseen holdout cohort; distinguish broad platform shifts from Cadence-specific changes.
What the dashboard does — and does not — claim
Does: demonstrate the reporting interface, proposed measurement model, interactive analysis and evidence-to-action workflow.
Does not: measure actual vendor visibility, prove a ranking defect, or promise performance gains. Real numbers require an approved benchmark using platform-appropriate access and verifiable source data.