From Brand X / Y / Z to named clients: why we de-anonymized our case studies

When leapunion.com first went live, our case studies used pseudonyms — Brand X / Y / Z by vertical. That choice was deliberate: client sign-off on attributed publication takes time, and we wanted to ship the site without blocking on legal cycles.

But three months in, two things became clear. First, AI engines like Perplexity and ChatGPT preferentially cite content with named entities — "Brand X" doesn't resolve to anything in their knowledge graph, but "Soundcore" does. Anonymized cases protected client comfort but cost us GEO discoverability. Second, the named brands wanted the public attribution. The work had moved real numbers, and the brands themselves wanted that on their record.

We made the swap on 2026-05-02. Brand X → Soundcore (Anker Group consumer audio), Brand Y → Eureka (robot vacuum), Brand Z → Momcozy (mom-tech / DTC). And added 4 new clients: Miniso (variety retail), Midea (smart-home conglomerate), Neakasa (smart pet), Tanlink (cross-border auto parts). The Tanlink case is particularly worth reading — it's our first full 4-layer Solution Matrix deployment, with the Agentic Commerce Growth platform generating per-SKU AI-readable schema across 51,000+ products.

All result numbers are still labeled `≈` to indicate engagement modeling + public-source AI-surface monitoring rather than audited attribution. The legal posture changed (named-claim instead of anonymized-illustration), but the methodology is identical. If you're a current or prospective client and have a story you'd like told publicly, contact@leapunion.com — we'll work the consent and the framing together.