Persona Conditioning of Brand Recommendations in Retrieval-Augmented Commercial Chat: A Prominence-Stratified Cross-Provider Audit

The same prompt -- "best CRM software" -- reaches AI assistants from buyers in widely different contexts: a solo founder, an enterprise VP, a UK SMB owner. We audit how strongly that contextual variation reshapes which brands the model recommends. The audit samples 2,000 runs over a design space of 10 personas x 8 prompts x 3 model configurations x N=10 reps, with the two OpenAI cells at full 8-prompt coverage and the Anthropic sonnet-4.6 / low cell at 4-prompt coverage. Prefixing the user message with a persona drops the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) by Delta = -0.12 to -0.20 relative to a same-persona baseline (clustered 95% CIs exclude zero on all three measured cells; the sonnet cell's CI rests on only 4 prompt clusters and is correspondingly wider). The effect is sharply prominence-stratified: category leaders are persona-resistant (~80% same-brand consistency across personas), but mid-market brands swap up to 75% of the recommendation set as the persona changes. The Anthropic model shows a larger point-estimate effect than the OpenAI configurations, though clustered CIs overlap for the closer contrast (sonnet vs. OpenAI/high); the asymmetry is consistent with Anthropic's more retrieval-unattributed generation route (43-52% recommendations without observed retrieval-layer evidence, vs OpenAI's 8-29%, documented in Jack 2026). Any measurement of AI brand perception must condition on the buyer persona supplying the query: the same prompt produces materially different recommendation sets depending on who the model thinks is asking, and a measurement protocol that aggregates across personas systematically obscures that variation. The effect concentrates at mid-market and is largest on the most priors-reliant generation route in our audit, consistent with persona responsiveness growing as models lean more on training-data priors and richer context integration.

Paraphrase Brittleness in Production Retrieval-Augmented Commercial Recommendation: Reproducibility Below the Rerun-Stability Baseline

Small changes to how a buyer phrases a question -- "best CRM" vs "top CRM" vs "best CRM for a SaaS startup" -- produce substantially different brand recommendations from AI assistants. Across ~6,000 paraphrase runs and ~6,000 same-prompt rerun controls on OpenAI and Anthropic models, the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) between two paraphrases of the same underlying buying intent is 0.288 for cosmetic rewordings (clustered 95% CI [0.215, 0.361]) and 0.135 for constraint-adding rewordings ([0.098, 0.175], pooling region/language and specificity-ladder axes) -- both far below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline. The prompt string, not the underlying buyer intent, is the dominant input to which brands surface. Increasing reasoning effort does not narrow the gap (bounded by +/-0.05). This is a direct challenge to an increasingly popular AEO/GEO practice. Tracking a brand's "AI visibility" by counting brand mentions over a fixed set of prompts produces a metric whose dominant source of variance is which paraphrase the tracker happens to issue, not the model's behavior toward the brand: the same buyer intent in two natural paraphrases produces recommendation sets that overlap 14-29% in Jaccard versus 50-61% for same-prompt reruns. Sampling more paraphrases per intent reduces the artifact in principle, and efficient multi-prompt evaluation methods exist in the academic literature, but the natural buyer-phrasing space is much larger than the benchmark-scale prompt sets those methods have been validated on, and far beyond what any commercial tracker issues per brand-intent combination. Prompt-by-prompt mention tracking is therefore structurally unstable as a unit of measurement; meaningful improvement likely requires a different unit rather than a larger prompt set.

Prominence-Stratified Failure Modes in Retrieval-Augmented Commercial Recommendation: A 37,000-Run Audit

AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude are recommendation engines, not search engines: they answer commercial queries by directly nominating brands rather than returning a list of links. Marketing to AI is therefore a broader problem than "show up in search" -- positioning, content, and product fit matter as much as discoverability. We audit ~37,000 production runs across four model configurations and 215 commercially-framed prompts spanning 19 sectors, evaluated against a 533-brand reference catalog stratified into five prominence tiers (L1 category leaders to L5 regional players) sourced from external authority lists. The ladder proxies a brand's awareness footprint within its sector, not revenue or market share. The failure mode differs sharply by tier. L1 brands appear in nearly every relevant retrieval but win only 25-41% of the recommendation slots they reach -- the leverage is differentiation, not visibility. L2 challengers carry the highest conversion rates of any tier (37-52%) but lose to persona-mediated substitution on the Anthropic models. L3 mid-market brands are the inflection level: aggregate coverage drops to 88%, conversion to 34-40%, and persona effects peak. L4 specialists and L5 regional players face catastrophic invisibility -- 48-52% never surface in any of the 37,000 runs. No uniform optimization recipe wins; the right marketing investment depends on where the brand sits on the prominence ladder.