Every recommendation zued generates is scored automatically using a consistent formula. The goal is to surface the changes most worth doing first — not just the most impactful ones, but the ones with the best impact-to-effort ratio.
How it works
The priority score combines three factors:
Impact
How much the fix is expected to improve AI visibility for this URL:
| Level | What to expect |
|---|
| High | Significant visibility improvement — likely to change whether AI engines cite you |
| Medium | Measurable improvement — closes gaps that currently weaken your position |
| Low | Incremental improvement — worth doing after higher-impact changes |
Effort
How long the fix realistically takes:
| Level | Timeframe |
|---|
| Low | Under 2 hours — one person, no dependencies |
| Medium | 2 hours to 2 days — may need a developer or designer |
| High | Over 2 days — team coordination required |
Engine scope
Issues that affect multiple AI engines are ranked higher than engine-specific ones. A robots.txt problem that blocks all engines is more urgent than a formatting issue that only affects one.
Which engines an issue affects is determined by how the engines actually responded to your page, not by general assumptions about each engine. When the observed behavior on your page disagrees with an engine’s usual tendencies, recommendations follow what we observed, provided we saw it consistently across more than one response.
Examples
| Issue | Impact | Effort | Engine scope | Priority |
|---|
robots.txt blocking GPTBot | High | Low | All engines | 100 |
| Missing statistic AI engines cite | High | Low | All engines | 100 |
| Site-wide JavaScript → SSR refactor | High | High | All engines | 100 (Strategic) |
| Add FAQ schema to FAQ page | Medium | Medium | Most engines | Medium |
A Priority 100 score doesn’t always mean quick to fix — it means the issue is too important to defer. A site-wide JS refactor scores 100 but belongs in strategic planning, not this week’s to-do list.
