Your existing site, retrofitted to the same foundations a new Pulse-built site ships with. Schema graph audited and extended to cover every public route, llms.txt published and linked from the homepage, robots.txt updated to allow the 18 named AI crawlers (and explicitly deny the ones you choose to block), Core Web Vitals diagnosed and patched against the highest-impact regressions, and the top 10 organic landing pages get a citability pass so their answer-block, statistical-density, and self-containment scores all clear B-grade. No rebuild, no replatform, no CMS migration.
Type-specific schema (Product, Article, FAQPage, HowTo, Service) where applicable
llms.txt and llms-full.txt published at root and /.well-known/
robots.txt updated against the 18 named AI crawlers
Core Web Vitals patches against the highest-impact regressions (top 10 URLs)
Citability rewrite pass on top 10 organic landing pages
Statistical density injection on low-scoring blocks
Pulse audit at engagement start (baseline) and at end (delta evidence)
Handover documentation for the editorial team to maintain the foundations
Foundations
Every schema and geo retrofit engagement inherits the four UX Studio foundations.
Schema graph wired at every URL. Core Web Vitals budget agreed at scope. Crawler-access policy across 18 named AI crawlers. Schema-per-page rather than templated copies. The full foundations grid lives on the UX Studio overview.
Cost and time. A retrofit lands the GEO foundations in 4 to 8 weeks against an existing site at a fraction of the cost of a rebuild. The trade-off is that some of the structural improvements a rebuild enables (component system, performance ceiling, content layer modernisation) stay out of scope. The retrofit is the right call when the existing site is in reasonable shape and the GEO gap is the main thing standing between the buyer and Pulse-grade visibility.
Yes, both. WordPress retrofits inject schema via a custom code snippet (Yoast or RankMath schema usually replaced or supplemented), llms.txt published as a static file, robots.txt updated, citability rewrites edited via the existing CMS. Webflow retrofits use Webflow's custom-code injection points; schema lands in the page-head custom code, llms.txt sits in the published site asset uploads. Framer is similar to Webflow. Squarespace is the only platform where retrofits hit hard limits. its schema and robots.txt control surfaces are too restrictive.
Direct successor. The retrofit lands the foundations; the retainer keeps them current. Schema regenerates as the site grows, llms.txt reflects new content, AI-crawler access stays correct as the major engines update their UA strings, citability scores stay above B-grade as competitors publish. Most retrofit clients flow into a Pulse Growth retainer the month after engagement end, but the retrofit is also fine as a one-off if you want the foundations and prefer to maintain them in-house.
Work with valUX
Start where it hurts.
If your organic traffic is sliding, start with a Pulse audit. If you want a programme rather than a one-off, ask about a retainer. Either way, every enquiry is read by a senior architect, and you hear back within one working day.