AI-citation eligibility via structured records — DIRECTIONAL; vendor-blog driven, Google's own position is "not a direct ranking factor"

Claim: Multiple SEO/marketing sources argue structured data helps content surface in AI Overviews and generative engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity). These are largely vendor/agency claims. Google's own position is that structured data "isn't a direct ranking factor," while noting AI Overviews pull from "a range of sources, including information from across the web."

Source: Google Search Central commentary; cross-referenced against Google Search Central — structured data produces eligibility, not a guarantee; does not guarantee rich results even with correct markup. AI-engine-side citation claims are predominantly vendor-blog sourced.

Confidence: Directional-Speculative — the AI-answer eligibility claim rests mostly on vendor sources; treat as plausible and forward-looking, not established.

Why this matters for Candid: Honest framing for the AI-citation angle. The mechanism is plausible (extractable records are more cite-able than locked PDFs / images) but the magnitude is unestablished. Use as supporting framing, not as the primary justification. Anchors R6 — Quarantine vendor CTR / AI-citation multipliers; the only clean primary figure (Nestlé 82%) is single-company and ring-fenced for AI-side as well as search-side claims.