An AI citation opportunity should lead to a considered editorial decision. Before commissioning another article, ask whether your existing content already answers the question, whether the audience matters to your business, and what evidence you can add.
On October 13, 2026, Bing introduced Topics Portfolio in beta. It groups grounding queries into themes and surfaces opportunities where other sites appear but yours does not. The view is personalized to the site's activity. That makes it a useful starting point for a focused review, rather than an instruction to publish every suggested topic. See Bing's announcement.
The workflow below is our proposed way to turn that signal into one defensible content task. It is not a claim about results from a Lemon SEO client account.
What changed in Bing AI Performance
Topics Portfolio adds context around a site's thematic presence. Topic Size approximates citations across all sites in a topic; Sites Cited approximates participating sites; Queries approximates distinct grounding queries. Opportunity citation volumes are ranges. These are planning signals, not exact market totals. Source: metric definitions.
Bing identifies three beta limitations:
- Classification can be imperfect.
- Low-data topics or sites may be absent.
- Competitor-branded queries can appear as opportunities.
Check relevance manually before assigning work. An unavailable view does not establish that your content has no AI visibility. Source: beta limitations.
Read the report without turning citations into rankings
AI Performance covers Microsoft Copilot, AI-generated Bing summaries and selected partner integrations. Keep that scope in the report title; do not label it a measurement of every AI assistant. Bing's original release defines those supported experiences.
Grounding queries are sampled phrases used to retrieve cited content. Page-level citation counts describe references to a URL, not its ranking or placement inside an answer. A useful internal note therefore separates the observed query, cited page and reporting period from your interpretation of why they appeared. Source: citation definitions.
Bing's query-level Citation Share uses your site's citations as a proportion of citations across sites for the same query. It is not traffic share or a quality grade. Keep its denominator visible and avoid presenting it as a percentage of the whole topic's search audience. Source: Citation Share.
Use a review sheet with separate fields for observation, interpretation and proposed action. For example, record an opportunity query exactly as displayed, then write a hypothesis about the missing answer. Leave the hypothesis unconfirmed until someone inspects the relevant pages.
Map an opportunity to an existing page first
The supporting illustration shows two editorial paths: improve an existing answer or create a distinct page. It represents a decision, not a measured network of Bing citations. Use that distinction to keep a broad topic from turning into a batch of overlapping articles.
For each candidate, work through this proposed checklist:
- Restate the reader's question. Describe the decision or task in ordinary language. Preserve the original query alongside your interpretation.
- Check commercial relevance. Name the audience and the service or product they might reasonably need. Exclude unrelated brand navigation and subjects outside your expertise.
- Find the closest existing answer. Review the site's page inventory and read the most relevant page. Record its URL, intended reader and missing detail.
- Choose a bounded action. Improve the current answer when it serves the same intent. Propose a new page only when you can explain a separate reader need.
- Name the evidence owner. Identify who can verify instructions, specifications, examples or limitations before a writer starts.
Our topical authority framework provides a broader context for organizing related pages. For this review, the useful output is a specific task with a reason and an owner. A topic label alone is too broad to serve as an article brief.
A worked example with no invented results
| Hypothetical opportunity | Evidence to inspect | Proposed action |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance question | An existing guide answers it incompletely | Improve that guide with verified instructions |
| Comparison question | No existing page answers the distinct buying decision | Brief one comparison page with documented criteria |
| Another brand login | The intent belongs to a different company | Exclude from the editorial queue |
| Unclear topic label | The query does not fit the proposed cluster | Review the query and submit classification feedback |
Imagine an equipment supplier reviewing possible questions about maintenance and product selection. This is a hypothetical planning exercise. We have not accessed an account, observed these queries or measured any citation changes.
The decision table compares four possible review outcomes. Read its evidence column before its action column: each proposed task depends on what the reviewer finds. A maintenance question might justify improving a guide; a separate buying decision might justify a comparison page. A different company's login query should not automatically become an acquisition target.
Use the example to write a short decision note:
- Reader need: understand whether the equipment suits a particular operating condition.
- Current answer: identify the existing page and the specific question it leaves unresolved.
- Required evidence: request documented operating limits and an expert explanation of exceptions.
- Proposed action: update the relevant section or brief a separate comparison, depending on the page review.
- Acceptance: have the evidence owner confirm the explanation and a reader check that the answer is understandable.
Turn the chosen opportunity into a usable brief
Microsoft recommends clear headings, structured lists and concise answers that retain meaning outside their surrounding paragraph. Its guidance also states that these practices do not guarantee selection in AI answers. Source: content guidance.
Translate that guidance into an editorial brief that someone can execute:
- State the reader's question and the page's intended scope.
- List the facts that require verification and the primary source for each.
- Request a direct answer, followed by practical steps, conditions and exceptions.
- Specify a useful example or comparison only when the evidence supports it.
- Identify the related page a reader should visit next and explain why.
- Assign a reviewer and a review date before placing the work in the calendar.
Keep the proposed change narrow enough to inspect. “Add the documented maintenance interval and explain when it changes” is a more usable task than “optimize for AI.” If the required evidence is unavailable, leave the item pending rather than asking the writer to improvise.
Place the accepted task in an SEO content calendar, alongside its source, owner and acceptance criteria. Preserve those fields when the task moves between strategy, writing and implementation.
Measure the change with a separate outcome log
Microsoft's advertiser guidance describes citation visibility as a discovery signal that can exist without immediate traffic. Treat the two as separate observations. A citation change alone is insufficient evidence for a claim about leads or revenue. Source: measurement context.
Bing's Compare view supports period comparisons, but its documentation names several influences on citation activity, including models, competing content and freshness. A movement after an edit therefore needs interpretation; it does not isolate the edit's effect. Source: comparison limits.
For a practical review, keep this proposed log:
- The exact URL, change date and substantive edit.
- The reporting surface, date windows and visible filters.
- The observed citation and page data, with ranges preserved as ranges.
- Relevant site visits and business outcomes from their own reporting systems.
- Other releases or changes that could complicate interpretation.
- A decision to retain, investigate or revise the content, with the reason.
Set the next review date before publication. Compare like periods where possible and write “not observed” when data is missing. Do not silently convert an unavailable report into a zero or change the review window just to obtain a more attractive result.
Start with one defensible content decision
A useful first cycle ends with a reviewed task, an evidence owner and a measurement plan. It may result in one page update, a carefully scoped new brief or a justified decision to do nothing yet.
To scope that work with Lemon SEO, explore our AI search services. If you need an initial review of your content and measurement setup, Request a free audit. Bring the page you want to improve and the question you need it to answer; use the available evidence to decide the next step.