See what the researchcan deliver before you begin.
This sample shows how PersonaSignal organizes shopper contexts, recommendation states, alternatives, source observations, evidence notes, and next questions in a written deliverable.
Every brand, scenario, result, and value on this page is illustrative. This is not a customer case.
PersonaSignal
PERSONA-FIRST AI RECOMMENDATION RESEARCH
REPORT / SAMPLE
AI Recommendation Diagnostic Report
Persona-first Recommendation Diagnostic
SUBJECTSample Brand
MARKETUnited States
STATUSIllustrative
ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE REPORTNOT A CUSTOMER CASE
VERSIONDEMO / 01
FORMATWRITTEN DIAGNOSTIC
REVIEWHUMAN-REVIEWED STRUCTURE
REPORT CONTENTS
01Executive SummaryIN THIS REPORT
02Persona MatrixIN THIS REPORT
03Recommendation PerformanceIN THIS REPORT
04Competitor SubstitutionIN THIS REPORT
05Source ObservationIN THIS REPORT
06Website Information GapsIN THIS REPORT
07Action PrioritiesIN THIS REPORT
08Raw DataIN THIS REPORT
The sections below show the complete accepted report structure. All brands, observations, and values are illustrative.
01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What we observed.
The summary starts with reviewable observations, then connects them back to specific Personas, conditions, and records.
FINDING01
ILLUSTRATIVE FINDING
Recommendation status changed across shopper needs.
In this sample, Sample Brand was Recommended in routine, low-irritation use contexts but was Not Selected when price clarity and travel format became stricter screening criteria.
OBSERVED ACROSS DEMO SCENARIOS
FINDING02
ILLUSTRATIVE FINDING
Mention and recommendation were recorded separately.
Some answers recognized and described the brand without selecting it. The report keeps Mentioned distinct from Recommended.
OUTPUT STATUS RECORDED SEPARATELY
FINDING03
ILLUSTRATIVE FINDING
Shopper context changed what counted as a fit.
Budget, frequency of use, ingredient preferences, and travel constraints changed the comparison criteria. The report retains those details instead of collapsing them into a broad audience label.
PERSONA + CONTEXT RETAINED IN REVIEW
02
PERSONA MATRIX
Recommendation results by shopper context.
Person, Context / Task, Full Need, constraints, and screening criteria stay connected to each result.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATASYNTHETIC PERSONAS / GENERIC BRANDS
Four synthetic shopper personas with illustrative Sample Brand results and alternatives
Persona
Context / Need
Your Brand Result
Main Alternative
P-01Routine-focused skincare shopper34 · United States
A low-irritation daily moisturizerFragrance-free · Simple routine · Mid-range budget
Recommended
Brand A
P-02Budget-conscious first-time buyer27 · United States
An easy first choice with clear pricingFirst purchase · Easy to find · Price-sensitive
Mentioned
Brand B
P-03Ingredient-focused repeat buyer41 · United States
Detailed formula and ingredient guidanceRepeat use · Research-led · Flexible budget
Recommended
Brand C
P-04Frequent traveler38 · United States
One compact product for short tripsCarry-on limits · Multi-use · Easy to replace
Not Selected
Brand D
STATUS DEFINITIONS
Recommended
Explicitly presented as a recommended option.
Mentioned
Named, but not clearly recommended.
Not Selected
Another option was selected or the target was not chosen.
Unknown / Insufficient Evidence
The answer did not support reliable classification.
READING NOTEOne Persona is not a stable conclusion. A real study uses prompt variation, repeated runs, and human review to see whether patterns persist.
03
RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE
How results are distributed across recorded scenarios.
Each observable result uses the same status rules so clear recommendations, mentions, and non-selections stay distinct.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATADEMO VALUES ONLY
STRUCTURED TEST SCENARIOS
24
illustrative scenarios
These existing sample values demonstrate report hierarchy. They are not recommendation rates from a customer study or a market benchmark.
Recommended
Explicitly presented as a recommended option
0833.3% OF DEMO SCENARIOS
Mentioned
Named without being clearly selected
0625.0% OF DEMO SCENARIOS
Not Selected
Another option was selected
1041.7% OF DEMO SCENARIOS
INTERPRETATION BOUNDARY
This distribution only summarizes the illustrative run records shown here. It does not reveal hidden model logic or prove that one website detail caused a recommendation outcome.
04
COMPETITOR SUBSTITUTION
When the target is not selected, what appears instead?
The report records the alternative chosen in each relevant shopper context. It does not treat that substitution as proof of a specific content gap.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATASYNTHETIC PERSONAS / GENERIC BRANDS
FILTERED VIEW
SCENARIOS WHERE YOUR BRAND WAS NOT THE SELECTED RECOMMENDATION
Only illustrative scenarios in which Your Brand was not the selected recommendation.
P-02Budget-conscious first-time buyer
NEEDClear pricing and an easy first choice
YOUR BRAND RESULTMentioned
→
MAIN ALTERNATIVEBrand B
P-04Frequent traveler
NEEDCompact multi-use travel format
YOUR BRAND RESULTNot Selected
→
MAIN ALTERNATIVEBrand D
05
SOURCE OBSERVATION
When search is available, which public sources appear?
Under Search / Grounding conditions, the report can record public sources visible in the answer and how the brand or category is represented.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATAPLACEHOLDER DOMAINS ONLY
Four illustrative public source observations using placeholder domains
Source
Type
Subject
Observed in Response
Role / Note
samplebrand.exampleDEMO DOMAIN
Official Website
Your Brand
Appeared
Public brand and product information
retailer.exampleDEMO DOMAIN
Retail
Brand B
Appeared
Product listing and availability
editorial.exampleDEMO DOMAIN
Editorial
Category
Appeared
Category explanation and comparison
community.exampleDEMO DOMAIN
Community
Brand C
Appeared
Shopper discussion and use context
06
WEBSITE INFORMATION GAPS
What may need clarification or further testing?
The report compares observed brand-description differences with public information, then identifies questions worth reviewing. It does not present hypotheses as proven causes.
ILLUSTRATIVE OBSERVATIONSNOT PROVEN CAUSES
OBSERVATION01
WHAT WE OBSERVED
Product use case was unclear.
WHY REVIEW
The page explains product features, but the intended shopper situations may need more definition.
WHAT TO TEST NEXTCLARIFY
Compare clearer use-case language in controlled follow-up tests.
OBSERVATION02
WHAT WE OBSERVED
Audience descriptions varied.
WHY REVIEW
Different pages describe the intended shopper in different ways.
WHAT TO TEST NEXTVERIFY
Review descriptions across the homepage, product pages, and FAQ.
OBSERVATION03
WHAT WE OBSERVED
A key specification was hard to locate.
WHY REVIEW
Information relevant to a shopper's criteria was spread across several locations.
WHAT TO TEST NEXTCHECK
Map the specification to page hierarchy and source location.
OBSERVATION04
WHAT WE OBSERVED
Claim context was incomplete.
WHY REVIEW
Some claims may need clearer context, conditions, or evidence boundaries.
The report separates confirmed issues, information that deserves clarification, and hypotheses requiring follow-up tests.
ILLUSTRATIVE PRIORITIESORDER / ACTION TYPE · NOT IMPACT SCORE
PRIORITYP0CORRECT
Correct confirmed issues.
Address factual errors, conflicting public information, or missing required details.
01Align conflicting product specifications across public pages.
PRIORITYP1CLARIFY
Clarify information used in comparison.
Make important public details clearer, more consistent, or easier to find.
01Make priority shopper use cases easier to identify.
02Bring scattered product specifications into a clearer hierarchy.
PRIORITYP2TEST
Test unresolved hypotheses.
Use follow-up research for positioning or page changes that still require evidence.
01Test whether clearer positioning changes results for selected Personas.
02Repeat grounded and non-grounded controls after public information changes.
08
RAW DATA
A route back to the original record.
Structured run records keep the recommendation result, Persona, model, source context, and human-review status connected to the underlying answer.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATADEMO VALUES ONLY
Three illustrative structured run records
Run ID
Persona
Model
Grounding
Prompt
Mentioned
Result
Alternative
Sources
Review
RUN-001
P-01
Gemini
Grounded
Blind / Natural
Yes
Recommended
—
3
Reviewed
RUN-002
P-02
Gemini
Grounded
Product Fit
Yes
Mentioned
Brand B
4
Reviewed
RUN-003
P-04
Gemini
Non-grounded
Blind / Natural
No
Not Selected
Brand D
0
Reviewed
RESEARCH CONCLUSION
From shopper context to a reviewable research record.
This sample shows how PersonaSignal separates what was observed, what may explain it, and what is worth testing next—without turning a model answer into a verdict.
ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE REPORT · NOT A CUSTOMER CASE
METHOD + NEXT STEP
See how the research is structured.
Explore the test design behind the report, then start with one clear question about a brand, market, or product.