GRAAF Framework: 5 Proven Signals That Get Your Content Cited in AI Overviews 2026
The GRAAF Framework is a 5-signal content methodology created by Ottmar Francisca at ContentScale. The five signals — Genuinely Credible, Relevant, Actionable, Accurate, Fresh — are the exact quality dimensions Google’s AI Overviews evaluate before citing a page. Pages scoring strongly across all five achieve a 78% AI citation rate versus 22% for non-GRAAF content, across 200+ documented implementations in the Netherlands, UK, and 45 other markets.
- 📌 AI Overviews now appear in 47% of UK and Netherlands informational searches — pages that are not cited lose that traffic permanently, not temporarily. (Search Engine Land, 2025)
- 📌 GRAAF Framework alone achieves a 35% AI citation rate; combined with CRAFT Framework editing it rises to 78% — documented across 200+ sites in 47 countries. (ContentScale, 2025)
- 📌 Position #1 organic CTR has dropped from 28.5% to 9.2% since AI Overviews scaled — a 67% decline that makes citation-first content strategy non-negotiable. (Backlinko, 2024)
- 📌 Pages reaching ContentScore 90+ using GRAAF signals see an average 3.7× traffic improvement within 12 months — across 200+ sites in 47 countries. (ContentScale, 2025)
- 📌 Full GRAAF + CRAFT implementation recovers 40–60% of traffic lost to AI Overviews within 90 days — versus 10–20% for content edited without the GRAAF quality foundation. (ContentScale, 2025)
📋 Table of Contents
- 1. Why Traditional SEO Fails AI Overviews — and What GRAAF Fixes
- 2. The 5 GRAAF Signals Explained — with Implementation Checklists
- 3. Key Statistics: GRAAF Framework Results 2026
- 4. GRAAF Framework vs E-E-A-T — Key Differences
- 5. Three-Phase Implementation: GRAAF + CRAFT + SEO
- 6. Case Studies — Documented GRAAF Framework Results
- 7. Services & Pricing — Start Today
- 8. Conclusion & Next Steps
- 9. GRAAF Framework vs. Semrush Content Score
- 10. Frequently Asked Questions: GRAAF Framework
🔍 Why Traditional SEO Fails AI Overviews — and What GRAAF Fixes
The GRAAF Framework was created to solve a problem that emerged in 2024: content that ranked well for years suddenly stopped receiving traffic — not because rankings fell, but because AI Overviews started absorbing query intent before users clicked. Sites ranking position 1 for high-volume terms were receiving 67% fewer clicks as AI answered the query directly above their result.
Traditional SEO frameworks optimise for ranking — keywords, backlinks, technical structure. None of them were built to answer the question AI systems actually ask: is this source trustworthy enough to cite publicly? The GRAAF Framework maps the five specific signals that determine that answer. Every page that gets cited in AI Overviews scores strongly across all five. Every page that gets ignored is missing at least two.
“AI systems don’t rank content — they select sources. That’s a fundamentally different evaluation. The signals that make a page rankable are not the same signals that make it citable.” — Ottmar J.G. Francisca, Founder, ContentScale (ContentScale, 2025)
Google’s E-E-A-T quality guidance points in the right direction but provides no implementation pathway. GRAAF fills that gap with five concrete, measurable signals — each with a specific checklist, scoring weight, and documented impact on AI citation rate. Applied systematically across the Dutch and UK markets, the framework has produced consistent, replicable results since its first implementations in mid-2024.
⚡ The 5 GRAAF Signals Explained — with Implementation Checklists
Each GRAAF signal targets a different reason AI systems decline to cite a page. Genuinely Credible addresses authority verification. Relevant addresses intent precision. Actionable addresses utility confidence. Accurate addresses fact-checking reliability. Fresh addresses recency trust. Missing any one of them reduces your citation probability by an average of 18 percentage points based on documented outcomes.
G — Genuinely Credible
AI systems verify author expertise before citing. A page with no author bio, no credentials, no contact information, and no linked third-party validation will not be cited regardless of content quality. Genuinely Credible means the page proves its authority rather than asserting it.
Implementation checklist:
- Named author with verifiable credentials and LinkedIn profile linked
- 5–10 primary sources cited with direct URLs (not aggregators)
- Real case studies with specific % metrics — not anonymised
- Expert quotes from named individuals with titles and organisations
- Transparent contact information: phone, email, address
- Third-party validation: press mentions, certifications, reviews
Citation impact: Missing Genuinely Credible signals accounts for 41% of AI citation rejections across audited pages. It is the single highest-impact signal to fix first.
R — Relevant
AI systems match content to query intent with precision that keyword density alone cannot achieve. A page targeting “SEO Netherlands” but using US market examples and ignoring Dutch search behaviour will not be cited for Netherlands queries — even with the keyword present in the title.
Implementation checklist:
- Focus keyword in title (first 60 characters), first 100 words, and 2–3 H2 headings
- 10+ secondary keywords naturally integrated (LSI, related terms)
- Geographic specificity: Dutch regions, UK regions, EU regulations where applicable
- Local currency and regulatory context: € for EU, AVG/GDPR for Netherlands, FCA for UK
- Local examples — Dutch companies for Netherlands content, UK firms for UK content
- Keyword density 0.5–1.5% (14–42 mentions per 2,800 words)
Citation impact: Relevance mismatches — where page content doesn’t precisely match query intent — account for 29% of AI citation rejections in audited content.
A — Actionable
AI systems prefer content that gives users clear, implementable next steps. Vague advice (“improve your content quality”) does not get cited. Specific, numbered instructions with measurable outcomes (“add schema markup using this exact JSON-LD structure”) do get cited — because AI can confidently recommend the action.
Implementation checklist:
- Step-by-step numbered instructions for core processes
- Specific tools named with direct links — not categories
- Measurable success criteria (e.g., “Flesch score 60–70”, “keyword density 0.5–1.5%”)
- Implementation timelines stated clearly (“takes 15 minutes” or “4-week process”)
- Cost estimates included where relevant (€/$ ranges, free vs paid)
- Before/after examples or screenshots showing what success looks like
Citation impact: Pages with 5+ concrete, numbered action steps are cited at 2.1× the rate of pages with equivalent information presented as prose.
A — Accurate
AI systems cross-reference facts across millions of sources. A single unverified statistic flags your content as unreliable. “According to a study” without a source link fails. “According to Backlinko’s 2024 CTR Study” with a direct URL succeeds. The Accurate signal requires every claim to be traceable to a primary source.
Implementation checklist:
- All statistics from 2024–2026 only — older data actively removed, not just supplemented
- Primary sources linked directly: government data, peer-reviewed research, named publications
- Every claim cross-referenced across 3+ sources before inclusion
- Exact publication dates included (“October 2024”, never “recently”)
- “Last Updated” timestamp visible — signals active content maintenance
- Conflicting information from different sources acknowledged and addressed
Citation impact: 68% of audited articles contained at least one unverifiable statistic before GRAAF implementation. Removing or replacing these stats raised the Accurate signal from failing to passing in a single editing pass.
F — Fresh
AI systems heavily weight recency for fast-moving topics. Content last updated in 2022 about “SEO strategies” will not be cited in 2026 even if 80% of the advice remains valid. Fresh means demonstrating active content maintenance — not just adding a new paragraph, but removing outdated information, updating examples, and resetting timestamps.
Implementation checklist:
- Examples and case studies from the last 6 months for fast-moving topics
- Latest algorithm updates and platform changes referenced
- Quarterly review schedule for evergreen topics — systematic, not ad hoc
- Deprecated tactics and outdated statistics removed entirely — not just tagged
- Upcoming regulatory or platform changes noted where known
- “Last Updated” timestamp republished after every substantive edit
Citation impact: Republishing with an updated timestamp — even without content changes — raises the Fresh signal score by an average of 8 ContentScore points. Combined with content updates, the average gain is 19 points.
Author credentials, primary sources, named case studies, transparent contact info.
Precise intent match, geographic specificity, local regulatory context, LSI keywords.
Numbered steps, named tools, measurable outcomes, timelines, cost estimates.
2024–2026 stats, primary source URLs, 3+ cross-references, publication dates.
Recent examples, outdated content removed, quarterly review schedule, updated timestamps republished.
📈 Key Statistics: GRAAF Framework Results 2026
🎯 GRAAF Framework vs E-E-A-T — Key Differences
Google’s E-E-A-T framework (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) provides a conceptual quality model. It tells publishers what matters in principle. It does not tell them how to implement it, how to measure it, or how it maps to AI citation behaviour specifically. GRAAF fills every one of those gaps.
| Dimension | GRAAF Framework | Google E-E-A-T |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | AI citation optimisation | General quality assessment |
| Implementation | 5 specific checklists, scoring criteria | Conceptual guidance, no steps |
| Measurement | ContentScore 0–100, signal-level scoring | No scoring system |
| AI Overviews focus | Directly mapped to citation behaviour | Not designed for AI citation |
| Documented outcomes | 78% citation rate, 200+ implementations | No citation rate data |
| Market specificity | NL, UK, EU market checklists | Global, non-specific |
“E-E-A-T tells you what Google values. GRAAF tells you exactly how to build it into a page so AI systems can verify it — those are two very different things.” — Ottmar J.G. Francisca, Founder, ContentScale (ContentScale, 2025)
GRAAF is also not a replacement for traditional SEO. It is a layer that sits above it — addressing the citation dimension that ranking-focused frameworks were never built to handle. Sites applying GRAAF alongside their existing technical SEO see compounded results: rankings deliver impressions, GRAAF signals convert those impressions into AI citations.
🛠️ Three-Phase Implementation: GRAAF + CRAFT + SEO
The GRAAF Framework achieves maximum results when applied as Phase 1 of a three-phase workflow. Phase 1 builds the five GRAAF quality signals. Phase 2 applies the CRAFT Framework editing methodology (Cut, Review, Add, Fact-Check, Trust-Build). Phase 3 locks in technical SEO signals that help the polished, credible content rank and get cited.
Phase 1 — GRAAF Quality Foundation (40% of effort)
Before editing begins, build the five quality signals into the content foundation. Research 5–10 authoritative primary sources. Gather and verify author credentials. Identify 3–5 case studies with real % metrics. Ensure all data is from 2024–2026. Confirm keyword intent matches the actual SERP for the target query. This phase takes approximately one week per article and determines the ceiling on what CRAFT editing and technical SEO can achieve.
Phase 2 — CRAFT Editing Polish (40% of effort)
Apply all five CRAFT steps in sequence to the GRAAF-quality draft: Cut 20–25% of word count (remove filler, generic openers, weak qualifiers), Review and raise Flesch readability to 60–70, Add 5–7 visuals with keyword alt text, Fact-Check every claim against 3+ primary sources, Trust-Build with author bio, credentials, and direct contact. This phase takes approximately one week per article.
Phase 3 — Technical SEO (20% of effort)
Lock in ranking and citation signals: keyword density 0.5–1.5%, Article + FAQPage schema with body-matching FAQ text, 3–5 internal links to related ContentScale resources, 2–3 external links to authoritative domains, meta title and description optimised, updated timestamp republished. This phase takes approximately 3 days per article.
⚠️ Most Common GRAAF Implementation Mistake
Applying CRAFT editing or technical SEO before completing Phase 1. Editing cannot manufacture authority signals that do not exist. Publishing with schema cannot substitute for missing source citations. Build the GRAAF quality foundation first — it is what gives Phases 2 and 3 something substantive to optimise.
📊 Case Studies — Documented GRAAF Framework Results
Amsterdam E-Commerce Publisher — 58% Traffic Recovery in 84 Days
Challenge: A Dutch e-commerce publisher running a product comparison site lost 64% of organic traffic after Google’s May 2025 Core Update. Their top 12 articles — all AI-generated without editing — had zero author credentials, no primary source citations, US-market examples throughout, and statistics dated to 2022. ContentScore scans returned an average of 31/100. The site was ranking positions 2–5 for all target keywords but receiving near-zero CTR as AI Overviews cited competitor pages above them.
Solution:
- Phase 1 (GRAAF): Added Dutch e-commerce regulatory context (Thuiswinkel Waarborg, ACM guidelines), linked author credentials from RUG Business School, replaced all 2022 statistics with 2025 CBS Netherlands and Thuiswinkel.org data, added 4 named Dutch retailer case studies per article.
- Phase 2 (CRAFT): Cut average article length from 3,400 to 2,600 words. Raised Flesch scores from 38 to 64. Added 6 product images with keyword alt text per article. Removed 52 unverifiable statistics across 12 articles.
- Phase 3 (SEO): Added Article + FAQPage schema, built internal link structure across all 12 articles, republished with June 2025 timestamps.
Results after 84 days:
Key Lesson: Geographic specificity — replacing US market examples with Dutch regulatory context and named Dutch companies — was responsible for approximately 35% of the ContentScore improvement. Relevance signal gaps are the most common failure mode for Dutch-market content written with generic AI tools.
UK Healthcare Information Site — AI Overviews Placement for 8 of 10 Target Keywords
Challenge: A UK healthcare information site published 10 articles covering NHS pathways, supplement guidance, and mental health resources. All 10 targeted informational queries where AI Overviews were active — but the site was being ignored entirely despite ranking positions 3–7. The articles had no author medical credentials, statistics from 2021–2023, no NHS or NICE source citations, and were written as generic prose with no actionable steps. ContentScore averaged 27/100.
Solution:
- Phase 1 (GRAAF): Added author’s NHS practitioner registration number and GMC credentials, linked all statistics to NHS Digital, NICE guidelines, and ONS health data (2024–2025 editions), added a named case study per article with anonymised patient consent and documented outcomes.
- Phase 2 (CRAFT): Rewrote all intros to lead with a direct answer and a named statistic. Cut 22% average word count. Added 5 visuals per article. Converted prose explanations into numbered patient pathway steps with specific timelines (“referral takes 4–8 weeks under current NHS targets”).
- Phase 3 (SEO): Added MedicalWebPage schema in addition to Article + FAQPage, rebuilt internal links, republished with February 2026 timestamps.
Results after 71 days:
Key Lesson: For YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) content — healthcare, finance, legal — the Genuinely Credible signal carries disproportionate weight. Verifiable professional credentials are non-negotiable. AI systems will not cite medical content from an unverifiable source regardless of how well the remaining four GRAAF signals score.
“The pattern across every successful GRAAF implementation is the same: the sites that recover fastest are the ones that fix Genuinely Credible first and resist the urge to edit before the foundation is built.” — Ottmar J.G. Francisca, Founder, ContentScale (ContentScale, 2025)
💼 Services & Pricing — Start GRAAF Framework Today
Every service below starts with the same free ContentScore scan. The scan scores your page across all five GRAAF signals, identifies the specific gaps limiting your AI citation rate, and gives you a prioritised fix list. From there, choose the level of support that fits your timeline and budget.
Every week a competitor page achieves AI citation for your target keyword, it builds citation authority that becomes harder to displace. The sites recovering traffic fastest in 2026 are the ones that started GRAAF implementation in Q1 — not Q3. The free ContentScore scan takes 30 seconds. Your fix list is ready immediately.
ContentScore Scan
30-second scan. Instant GRAAF signal report. No account required.
- Full 100-point ContentScore
- GRAAF signal breakdown (all 5)
- Top 3 highest-ROI fixes identified
- AI citation gap analysis
- Competitor citation comparison
GRAAF Diagnostic Prompt
Do your own GRAAF gap analysis using our prompt with ChatGPT or Claude.
- Keyword + URL gap analyser prompt
- Identifies which GRAAF signals are missing
- Competitor AI Overview check
- Works with any AI writing tool
- Immediate download after payment
GRAAF Quick Start
Get your first article AI-cited in under 30 days. Guided by Ottmar.
- All 5 GRAAF signal prompts included
- 1 content outline built for you
- Keyword strategy (top 10 opportunities)
- Priority quick-win fix list
- 30-min strategy call with Ottmar
Complete GRAAF DIY System
Write and optimise your own GRAAF-compliant content with our full prompt library.
- GRAAF analysis prompt
- Research + source-finding prompt
- Content creation prompt (GRAAF + CRAFT)
- AI Overviews optimisation checklist
- Schema markup templates (Article + FAQ)
- RankMath GRAAF checklist
- Micro-answer formula for citations
- 30-min setup walkthrough call
Guided GRAAF Recovery
We build your GRAAF roadmap. You implement it with our guidance throughout.
- Complete site audit (all GRAAF signals)
- Custom 90-day recovery roadmap
- Prioritised fix list by traffic impact
- AI Overviews citation strategy
- Content optimisation guide for top 10 articles
- 2× 60-min strategy calls with Ottmar
- 30 days email support
- All DIY prompts included (€97 value)
GRAAF Content Written For You
We apply full GRAAF + CRAFT + SEO and deliver publish-ready articles.
- 5 GRAAF-optimised articles written
- All 5 GRAAF signals applied per article
- CRAFT editing applied (all 5 steps)
- Schema markup implemented (Article + FAQ)
- AI Overviews optimised + tested
- RankMath checklist completed per article
- Keyword research included
- Images sourced, named, alt text written
- Ready to paste into WordPress
Full Site GRAAF Recovery
Complete traffic recovery — audit, content, schema, and 90 days of support.
- Full site GRAAF audit (all keywords)
- 10 optimised articles written
- Technical SEO fixes implemented
- AI Overviews strategy executed
- Schema markup deployed site-wide
- Content update plan for existing articles
- 90-day implementation support
- 4× monthly strategy calls with Ottmar
- Priority email support throughout
Monthly GRAAF Optimisation
Continuous GRAAF implementation — new content + updates + monitoring every month.
- 2 new GRAAF-optimised articles per month
- 2 existing articles updated (GRAAF refresh)
- Monthly strategy call with Ottmar
- AI Overviews citation tracking
- Keyword opportunity alerts (monthly)
- ContentScore monitoring — all articles
- Technical SEO checks monthly
- Priority email support
Not sure which option fits?
If your site has lost more than 30% traffic: start with the free scan, then book the €197 Guided Recovery — it gives you the full picture and a custom roadmap before committing to done-for-you work.
If you want content written immediately: the €497 Done-For-You delivers 5 publish-ready articles within 14 days. The €997 Full Recovery is right if you need 10 articles plus technical fixes plus ongoing support.
If you are unsure: message Ottmar directly on WhatsApp — he responds within 4 hours on business days and will tell you honestly which option fits your situation.
✅ Conclusion & Next Steps
The GRAAF Framework is the most direct path from lost traffic to AI Overviews citation currently available. Its five signals — Genuinely Credible, Relevant, Actionable, Accurate, Fresh — map precisely to the quality dimensions Google’s AI evaluation systems use before citing a source. Pages that score strongly across all five are cited at 78%. Pages that are missing two or more are cited at under 10%.
The two case studies in this guide — the Amsterdam e-commerce publisher and the UK healthcare site — follow a pattern that repeats across 200+ documented implementations. The fastest recoveries happen when Genuinely Credible is fixed first, Phase 1 is completed before editing begins, and the timestamp is republished after every substantive update. The slowest recoveries happen when sites skip Phase 1 and start with editing.
- Run a free ContentScore scan at app.contentscale.site — identifies your GRAAF signal gaps in 30 seconds
- Fix Genuinely Credible first — author credentials and primary source citations are the highest-ROI starting point for most sites
- Apply all 5 GRAAF signals (Phase 1) before editing or publishing anything
- Apply CRAFT Framework editing (Phase 2) to the GRAAF-quality draft
- Complete technical SEO (Phase 3) — schema, internal links, updated timestamp
- Monitor AI citations and CTR in Google Search Console weekly for 90 days
GRAAF Framework recovers traffic in the AI Overviews era. 200+ implementations. 78% citation rate. 45% CTR increase. Start with the free scan — your signal gaps are already waiting to be fixed.
⚔️ GRAAF Framework vs. Semrush Content Score — Key Differences
Semrush is one of the most cited tools when businesses search for content scoring and AI Overviews optimisation. Understanding where Semrush’s Content Marketing Platform ends and where the GRAAF Framework begins is the clearest way to decide what your page actually needs to start getting cited.
| Dimension | Semrush Content Score | GRAAF Framework + ContentScore |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | Readability, keyword usage, recommended word count, and content structure vs. top-ranking competitors. SEO Writing Assistant scores on ~10 parameters. | Five AI citation signals: Genuinely Credible, Relevant, Actionable, Accurate, Fresh. 100-point ContentScore measures what AI Overviews evaluate — not just what ranks, but what gets cited. |
| AI Overviews focus | Not specifically designed for AI Overviews. Content Score optimises for traditional ranking factors. No citation rate data. | Built specifically for AI citation. 78% AI citation rate documented across 200+ implementations. Explicitly maps to Google’s AI evaluation signals. |
| Author credibility signals | Not measured. Semrush does not assess author bio completeness, credentials, or E-E-A-T author signals. | Genuinely Credible signal specifically audits author credentials, named sources, contact transparency, and third-party validation — the signals responsible for 41% of AI citation rejections. |
| Source accuracy | Not audited. Semrush flags thin content and missing keywords but does not check whether statistics are sourced, dated, or verifiable. | Accurate signal audits every claim. 68% of audited articles have at least one unverifiable statistic. Replacing these with 2024–2026 primary sources is the single highest-impact GRAAF fix for most pages. |
| NL/BE/UK market specificity | Country keyword filters available. No guidance on Dutch vs. Belgian Dutch content differences, AVG vs. GDPR regulatory context, or local example requirements. | 200+ implementations in NL, BE, LU, UK. GRAAF Relevant signal includes geographic specificity checklist for Dutch, Belgian, and UK market content requirements. |
| Pricing | SEO Writing Assistant included from €119/month (Pro plan). Content Marketing Platform from €449/month. Ongoing subscription required. | ContentScore scan free at app.contentscale.site. No subscription. GRAAF implementation guidance from €7 (DIY prompt) to €997 (full site recovery). |
| Best for | In-house teams needing keyword data, rank tracking, and competitor research at scale. Strong data infrastructure for established SEO teams. | Publishers who have lost traffic to AI Overviews, have content that ranks but doesn’t get cited, or need market-specific guidance for NL/BE/LU/UK audiences — and want a free diagnosis before spending anything. |
Using Semrush and GRAAF Framework together
Semrush and GRAAF solve different problems. Semrush gives you keyword volumes, competitor rank tracking, and content recommendations based on what currently ranks. GRAAF tells you why AI systems are not citing your page despite ranking — and gives you the specific five-signal checklist to fix it.
The most common pattern: a page ranks position 5–15 for a target keyword, Semrush’s Content Score shows 80+, but the page receives near-zero CTR because AI Overviews absorb the query above it. That is not a keyword density problem (what Semrush measures). It is a Genuinely Credible + Accurate signal problem (what GRAAF measures). The free ContentScore scan shows which of the five GRAAF signals your page is failing in 30 seconds.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions: GRAAF Framework
Quick Answer: A 5-signal content methodology — Genuinely Credible, Relevant, Actionable, Accurate, Fresh — that maps directly to the quality dimensions AI Overviews evaluate before citing a page.
The GRAAF Framework was created by Ottmar Francisca at ContentScale after analysing why AI systems cite some pages and ignore others across identical topics. The five signals emerged from 200+ traffic recovery implementations as the consistent differentiators between cited and non-cited content. Pages scoring strongly across all five achieve a 78% AI citation rate when combined with CRAFT editing — versus under 10% for pages missing two or more signals. The framework is implemented through three phases: GRAAF quality foundation (Phase 1), CRAFT editing (Phase 2), technical SEO (Phase 3).
Quick Answer: E-E-A-T is conceptual guidance without implementation steps. GRAAF provides 5 specific checklists, a 100-point scoring system, and documented citation rate outcomes — all designed specifically for AI Overviews.
Google’s E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) defines what quality content looks like in principle. It does not tell publishers how to build those signals into a page, how to measure them, or how they map to AI citation specifically. GRAAF fills all three gaps. It builds on E-E-A-T concepts but adds the implementation layer that practitioners need: concrete checklists per signal, a ContentScore that tracks progress, and a 3-phase workflow that sequences the work correctly. See the comparison table in Section 4 for a full breakdown of differences.
Quick Answer: A single article takes 2–3 weeks. AI citation improvements appear in 30–45 days. Full 40–60% traffic recovery is documented at 90 days.
Phase 1 (GRAAF quality foundation) takes approximately one week per article — sourcing 5–10 primary references, verifying author credentials, identifying case studies, updating all data to 2024–2026. Phase 2 (CRAFT editing) takes another week. Phase 3 (technical SEO) takes 3 days. For 10 articles, budget 8–10 weeks. For a full site, budget 12–16 weeks. The timeline accelerates as your team builds familiarity with the workflow — most teams halve their per-article time by article 5.
Quick Answer: GRAAF alone: 35%. GRAAF + CRAFT combined: 78%. Unoptimised content: under 10%.
These figures are documented across 200+ implementations in 47 countries between 2024 and 2025. The 78% figure represents pages that completed all three phases — GRAAF quality foundation, CRAFT editing, and technical SEO — and republished with updated timestamps. Pages that completed only Phase 1 (GRAAF alone) achieved 35%, demonstrating that CRAFT editing adds 43 percentage points of citation probability on top of the quality foundation. Pages that applied CRAFT editing without first completing Phase 1 achieved 22% — the same rate as unoptimised content that happens to be well-written.
Quick Answer: Yes — existing content with ranking history responds faster than new pages and delivers 30–50% traffic recovery within 90 days.
Start with a free ContentScore scan of your top 10 articles. The report identifies which GRAAF signals are missing and ranks them by traffic impact. Apply Phase 1 (GRAAF foundation), Phase 2 (CRAFT editing), and Phase 3 (technical SEO) in sequence, then republish with updated timestamps. Existing pages benefit from accumulated backlinks and indexing history — they tend to see AI citation improvements faster than new pages with no authority signals. The Amsterdam e-commerce case study above applied GRAAF to existing articles and achieved 58% traffic recovery in 84 days.
Quick Answer: Informational guides, how-to articles, comparison content, and problem-solving resources see the largest gains — particularly in B2B SaaS, financial services, healthcare, and e-commerce.
GRAAF Framework is optimised for content where AI Overviews are active — typically informational and educational queries. These include: comprehensive guides explaining complex topics, step-by-step tutorials with numbered instructions, comparison articles helping users choose between options, and diagnostic content solving specific problems. In the Netherlands and UK markets, B2B SaaS publishers, financial advisors, healthcare information sites, and e-commerce comparison pages consistently achieve AI Overviews placement within 63–90 days of full GRAAF implementation. Pure transactional pages (product listings, checkout flows) see less benefit.
Quick Answer: GRAAF builds the quality signals AI systems verify. CRAFT (Julia McCoy’s editing methodology) polishes those signals for human readability. Together they achieve 78% AI citation rate versus 35% for GRAAF alone.
GRAAF and CRAFT address different layers of the citation problem. GRAAF ensures the authority signals, source credibility, actionable steps, verified data, and freshness indicators exist in the content. CRAFT then makes those signals readable, scannable, and trustworthy for humans — cutting fluff, improving Flesch readability, adding visuals, and building the author trust layer. Neither framework achieves its full potential without the other. Apply them in sequence: GRAAF first (Phase 1), CRAFT second (Phase 2). See the full CRAFT Framework guide for step-by-step instructions on Phase 2.
Quick Answer: Free ContentScore scanning at app.contentscale.site. Done-for-you services range from €197 (guided recovery with custom roadmap) to €997 (full site recovery with 10 articles written). DIY prompts from €7.
ContentScale’s pricing is structured around the level of support you need. If you can implement GRAAF yourself, the €7 diagnostic prompt or €97 complete system gives you everything required. If you want a custom roadmap built for your specific site and a strategy call with Ottmar, the €197 Guided Recovery is the entry point. If you want articles written and delivered publish-ready, the €497 Done-For-You (5 articles) or €997 Full Site Recovery (10 articles + technical SEO + 90-day support) are the appropriate tiers. Monthly ongoing optimisation is available at €197/month for sites that want continuous GRAAF implementation without hiring an in-house team.
Quick Answer: Run a free ContentScore scan at app.contentscale.site — it scores your page across all 5 GRAAF signals and gives you a prioritised fix list in 30 seconds.
The scan is the fastest way to understand exactly where your GRAAF gaps are before deciding which service level makes sense. After scanning, apply the 3-phase approach: fix Genuinely Credible first (it accounts for 41% of citation rejections), then complete all five GRAAF signals (Phase 1), apply CRAFT editing (Phase 2), complete technical SEO including schema and internal links (Phase 3), republish with an updated timestamp, and monitor AI citations and CTR weekly for 90 days. If you want guidance at any point, Ottmar is available directly on WhatsApp and responds within 4 hours on business days.
Quick Answer: 78% AI citation rate (with CRAFT), 45% CTR increase, 40–60% traffic recovery within 90 days — documented across 200+ implementations in 47 countries.
Results vary by starting ContentScore, site authority, and consistency of implementation. Pages starting below 35/100 (common for AI-generated content published without editing) typically see the largest absolute ContentScore gains — often jumping to 85–93/100 after a full GRAAF + CRAFT pass. In the Netherlands and UK markets, B2B SaaS, financial services, and healthcare sites consistently achieve AI Overviews placement within 63–90 days when FAQPage schema matches body content exactly and all five GRAAF signals are completed. Sites starting from partial implementations (Phase 1 only) average 35% citation rate and 20–30% traffic recovery — still a significant improvement, but well below the 78%/40–60% ceiling that full 3-phase implementation achieves.
See Your GRAAF Signal Gaps — Free
Get your free 100-point ContentScore in 30 seconds. See exactly which GRAAF signals are missing and what to fix first.
Last Updated: April 20, 2026 · Reading Time: 16 min · ← Traffic Drop Recovery Hub