When someone asks an AI about your cause, whose framing do they get?
Donors, journalists and policymakers increasingly get their first answer from an AI assistant. Eidoscore shows how your cause and your organisation are described, which sources the assistants trust, and how the surrounding community conversation is shifting, with an analyst reviewing every flag.
Why this lands differently here.
Funding decisions, journalist enquiries and policy invitations now often begin with an assistant. Someone types your organisation's name, reads four sentences, and forms a view before ever reaching your site.
Those four sentences are assembled from whatever is best-indexed, which is rarely your latest work. Older controversies, resolved disputes and superseded reporting carry disproportionate weight because they generated more coverage at the time.
Meanwhile the community conversation around your cause moves faster than your comms cycle. Advocacy issues attract sustained, organised opposition, and the framing contest is usually decided in public forums long before it reaches mainstream coverage.
A funder does their own research, gets a stale controversy in the second sentence, and quietly moves on. You never hear about the meeting that did not happen.
What teams use it for.
Concrete work, not a dashboard tour. Each job produces something a person can review, decide on and send.
Monitor narrative framing around your issues across assistants and public communities
Detect misinformation about your cause early, with evidence attached
Turn citation gaps into a concrete content and outreach plan
What we monitor for you.
The same engine, pointed at the signals that matter in your work rather than a generic mention feed.
Cause framing
How your issue is characterised across assistants and public communities — supportive, sceptical, hostile or dismissive — with the language that carries each framing.
Organisational description
What assistants say about your governance, funding and record, and which sources that description is drawn from.
Misinformation signals
Claims about your cause that show early spread characteristics, flagged with evidence and reviewed by an analyst before they reach you.
Citation opportunities
Where your published research and reporting could be cited but is not, turned into a prioritised outreach list.
A concrete example.
A donor asks an AI assistant about your organisation and gets a three-year-old controversy in the second sentence. Eidoscore shows which sources the assistants rely on, which are outdated, and turns the gaps into a concrete content and outreach plan your team can action.
Questions we hear from NGOs and advocacy.
We are a small comms team. Is this heavy to run?
No. The core deliverable is one reviewed brief a week, ten minutes to read. The platform is there when you want the evidence behind it.
Do you cover multiple languages?
Multilingual classification for European languages is part of the build. Priority languages are confirmed during onboarding.
What do you actually claim on misinformation?
Early-warning flags with human review and evidence attached. We do not claim coordinated-campaign attribution.
What the weekly brief contains.
One reviewed document a week. Ten minutes to read, every claim linked back to its source.
EU-hosted. Public sources only. Topics and narratives, not individuals. Every action human-reviewed.