Contact Me
Linkedin
Risk Query Decision Tool | The Three Streams GEO Methodology
Home → Measurement → Risk Query Builder
Risk & Reputation Stream

Risk Query Decision Tool

Determine the optimal number and composition of risk detection queries using detection probability methodology

Methodology Note
This tool applies risk assessment principles from ISO 31000:2018 (likelihood, consequence, existing controls) and COSO ERM (velocity, vulnerability, inherent/residual risk) to the GEO context. Factors are mapped to specific risk categories based on logical mechanisms, not empirical validation.
1
Organization
Profile
2
Tolerance
Selection
3
Query
Definition
Step 1 of 3

Organization Profile

Basic information to customize your risk query templates

Used to generate brand-specific risk query templates
Helps generate category-relevant risk scenarios
Step 2 of 3

Risk Factor Assessment

Select factors that apply to your organization. Each factor increases the likelihood, impact, or velocity of specific GEO risks.

Assessment Framework: ISO 31000 & COSO ERM
This assessment uses three dimensions from established risk frameworks:
Likelihood — How probable is this risk category for your organization?
Impact — How severe are the consequences if this risk materializes?
Velocity — How quickly can this risk escalate to crisis?

Factors are grouped by which of the five GEO risk categories they primarily affect.
Risk Score
0/ 26
Select applicable risk factors to calculate your recommended tolerance level
Step 3 of 3

Define Risk Detection Queries

Build queries for each of the five risk categories. Use templates or add custom queries.

Risk Queries vs. Performance Queries
Risk detection queries are tracked separately from performance sentinel queries. They serve different purposes: risk queries detect emerging problems (success = absence of problems), while performance queries measure ACF and SOV-AI (success = presence of citations). Do not include these risk queries in your main performance sentinel set—they require a separate dashboard with different success criteria.
🕳️
1. Information Void Risk
Content Stream
0 / 6
▼
Definition: Gaps in authoritative brand content that AI systems fill through hallucination, inference from related sources, or citation of competitor information.

Risk Signal: AI hedges, cites competitors, or provides inaccurate information for brand-specific questions.
Your Information Void Queries
Query Templates (click to add)
📉
2. Citation Decay Risk
Technical Stream
0 / 6
▼
Definition: Existing authoritative content becoming outdated, inaccessible, or misaligned with current brand positioning while continuing to be cited by AI systems.

Risk Signal: AI cites outdated information or old publication dates.
Your Citation Decay Queries
Query Templates (click to add)
☣️
3. Training Contamination Risk
Business Stream
0 / 6
▼
Definition: Negative, inaccurate, or misleading information about your brand entering AI training corpora from community platforms, review sites, or third-party publications.

Risk Signal: AI surfaces negative sentiment or community complaints in neutral queries.
Your Training Contamination Queries
Query Templates (click to add)
👑
4. Authority Erosion Risk
Business Stream
0 / 6
▼
Definition: Competitor or third-party sources achieving higher authority than brand-owned sources for brand-related queries, displacing your content in AI responses.

Risk Signal: AI cites competitors or third parties rather than brand sources for category queries.
Your Authority Erosion Queries
Query Templates (click to add)
⚙️
5. Technical Accessibility Risk
Technical Stream
0 / 6
▼
Definition: Content existing on your website but being inaccessible to AI crawlers due to rendering issues, robots.txt configuration, rate limiting, or technical barriers.

Risk Signal: AI cannot find information that exists on your website.
Your Technical Accessibility Queries
Query Templates (click to add)
Total Risk Queries Defined
0/ 30
Define queries for each risk category to complete your risk detection set
Risk Query Set
0 queries | Moderate tolerance
0
Info Void
0
Decay
0
Contamination
0
Authority
0
Technical

Important Disclaimers & Methodology Notes

No Liability / Educational Use Only
This tool is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute professional, legal, business, financial, or any other form of advice. The creators, operators, and publishers of this tool expressly disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, or adverse outcome arising from the use of this tool or reliance on its outputs. No warranties, express or implied, are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information provided. Users assume all risk associated with the use of this tool and are solely responsible for any decisions or actions taken based on its results. Always consult qualified professionals before making business decisions.
Evidence Level Classification
This tool applies ◐ Framework Application status content: established risk management principles (ISO 31000:2018, COSO ERM) applied to the GEO context. This represents structured professional practice, not empirically validated GEO-specific research. The detection probability formula is mathematically valid; its application assumes problem prevalence rates (30%, 40%, 50%) that derive from general risk management practice, not GEO-specific validation.
Source: Three Streams GEO Methodology v20, Part 5, Section 1.6
Risk Queries vs. Performance Queries
Risk detection queries require a separate tracking dashboard from performance sentinel queries. They serve fundamentally different purposes: risk queries detect emerging problems (success = absence of problems), while performance queries measure ACF and SOV-AI trends (success = presence of citations, positive trend). Risk queries should not be included in ACF/SOV-AI calculations.
Source: Three Streams GEO Methodology v20, Part 5, Section 1.6 - "Risk Detection Queries vs. Performance Sentinel Queries"
Recommended Monitoring Cadence
Daily: Community sentiment monitoring (Training Contamination Risk)
Weekly: Sentinel Query monitoring for anomaly detection (not statistical trend analysis); AI crawler log review (Technical Accessibility Risk)
Monthly: Comprehensive KPI review with risk analysis; competitor authority assessment (Authority Erosion Risk)
Quarterly: Full risk assessment refresh; content audit for decay; regulatory compliance review
Source: Three Streams GEO Methodology v20, Part 5, Section 1.6 - "Risk Monitoring Cadence"
Detection Probability Assumptions
The detection probability formula assumes: (1) problems manifest across queries independently, (2) prevalence rates are consistent within categories, (3) weekly monitoring can detect problems before escalation. These assumptions are reasonable but unvalidated for GEO-specific contexts. Organizations should calibrate based on their observed detection rates over time.
Source: Statistical inference; methodology adaptation note
Excluded Risk Categories
This tool covers the five risk categories detectable through sentinel queries. Two additional methodology risk categories—Regulatory Evolution Risk and Platform Dependency Risk—require different detection methods (legal review, cross-platform performance analysis) and are not suitable for query-based monitoring.
Source: Three Streams GEO Methodology v20, Part 5, Section 1.4 - "GEO Risk Categories"

For Educational Purposes Only — No Liability Assumed

Based on the Three Streams GEO Methodology v20 | Risk framework adapted from ISO 31000:2018 and COSO ERM

Risk queries prioritize speed of detection over statistical precision. Use frequent monitoring for anomaly detection only.

This tool is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. The creators accept no liability for decisions made based on this tool. Use at your own risk.