A European intelligence layer for the AI-answer era.
Search is moving from clicking links to reading answers, and those answers come from a short set of sources nobody controls. Eidoscore watches both the answers and the sources behind them, inside European jurisdiction.
Reputation is now made in places ordinary analytics does not measure. Assistants draw on a selected set of sources. Communities on Reddit and Telegram are where narratives, debates and misinformation take shape. An organisation can look strong on its own website while being invisible, misunderstood or under attack elsewhere.
So the value is in meaning, not mention counts, and monitoring has to sit beside the decision to act, with a person in between.
Three shifts, arriving together.
Each would be manageable on its own. Together they move the place where reputation is decided out of view of every tool built for the previous decade.
- 01The interface changed
Answers replaced links
A question that once returned ten links now returns four sentences, and the reader stops there. For most people, those sentences are the whole of what they learn about an organisation.
- 02The source set narrowed
A short list decides
Assistants do not read the open web at the moment of asking. They draw on a small set of sources a model has learned to trust, and that set is self-reinforcing: being cited makes future citation more likely.
- 03The ground moved
Communities set the framing
Forums and public channels are no longer downstream of coverage. Increasingly they are where framing is decided first, and where the language that later appears in an answer is written.
What we believe, and what it costs us.
Constraints rather than slogans. Each one rules out a feature that would be easier to sell.
Meaning over volume
A count says that something happened, not whether it was support, irony or hostility. We classify for meaning and keep the evidence attached to every figure.
Honest uncertainty
Models answer the same question differently on different days. We ask on every scheduled run and report a range, because a number you cannot defend in a meeting is worse than no number.
A person decides
Nothing leaves Eidoscore without a named approval. Automated publishing into a live political or reputational conversation is a risk we will not hold on a client's behalf.
Governable by construction
European hosting and an audit trail behind every decision. Intelligence about public conversation has to be explainable to a regulator, or it should not be built.
What we will not build.
Worth stating plainly, because in this category the omissions say more than the feature list.
We do not monitor individuals
Topics and narratives, not people. Private accounts, closed groups and personal profiles are out of scope, whatever a client would pay for them.
We do not claim attribution
We flag claims that show early spread characteristics, with evidence. We do not say a campaign is coordinated or who is behind it, because we cannot prove it.
We do not publish on your behalf
Drafts, recommendations and routing, yes. Autonomous posting, no. A tool that speaks for an organisation without a person reading first has lost its accountability.
Where we are heading.
Direction, not fixed commitments. Each step is added only once it meets the same standard as the last.
- Today
Answers and communities, read for meaning
AI answers and public community conversation, classified for meaning rather than counted, with a founding cohort working alongside our team.
- Next
Deeper narrative analysis
Broader channel coverage and additional sources, shaped by what customers tell us actually changes a decision.
- Ahead
More engines, same method
Further assistants, including Perplexity, DeepSeek and Kimi, once each is verified end to end with the same scheduled runs and ranges.
See what Eidoscore can reveal for your organisation.
A working session on your own questions and channels, with real answers and sources. No obligation, and nothing sent without your approval.