GetApp listing eligibility: how to build a dated checklist for software vendors that does not go stale

You get a product on to GetApp by submitting it as a vendor, completing the required product information, and passing the platform's review, and the only honest version of an eligibility checklist is one with a version and a date at the top of it. Inclusion considerations are set by the platform and rewritten by the platform, so a checklist copied from an article is a checklist about a page that may no longer exist. As of 29 September 2026 we have not made a dated count of the inclusion considerations stated in GetApp's current vendor material, so this page states no count and lists no considerations. It gives you the checklist format instead: the four documents to read, the nine fields per row, the rule that separates a requirement from a preference, and the nearest real fraction we hold about whether directory profiles reach AI answers, which is from legal research software sold in India.

The answer, first

Four statements.

A checklist without a date is a liability. It gets shared internally, it gets believed, and it is wrong the first time the platform edits a page. Every row in the format below carries the URL it came from and the date it was read, so a stale row is visible rather than invisible.

Our count of stated inclusion considerations is empty, as of 29 September 2026. We have not read the current material on a dated basis, so we will not name a number. We will also not repeat a number from another article, because no article we have seen says which version of the page it read.

We do not restate the platform's documentation. The four documents to read are named below. Read them yourself, save copies, and build your checklist from your copies. That is not a way of avoiding work, it is the only way the checklist stays true.

Presence and prominence are different things. Getting listed is a yes or no. Where you appear, in which category, next to whom, and whether anybody reads that page is a separate matter, and most of it is not under your control. Keep the same facts on a page you own, because that page is the one you can fix.

How it was measured

A checklist is only as good as the process that produced it, so here is the process.

One. Name the four documents and exclude the rest. The vendor sign up or "add your product" page. The vendor help article describing what information is required. The vendor terms. The review guidelines, because they govern what happens after you are listed. Everything else, including blog posts, sales emails, webinars and support chat replies, goes in a second list marked unofficial and is never counted as a stated consideration.

Two. Record the version of each document. URL, date and time read, any last updated stamp printed on the page, and a saved copy. If you cannot produce the saved copy, you cannot defend the row later, and the row will be challenged the first time somebody's submission is refused.

Three. Separate requirements from preferences with one written rule. We use this: a row is a requirement only if the document says it must be met or that submission will not proceed without it. Everything else, however strongly worded, is a preference and goes in a second column. Then report two totals, requirements and preferences, and never merge them into one number. Most published counts of directory criteria are inflated because they merge these.

Four. Record nine fields per row.

• The consideration in the document's own words.
• Which of the four documents it came from.
• The date read.
• Requirement or preference, under the rule above.
• Whether you can test it yourself before submitting.
• The evidence that would satisfy it.
• Your current status: satisfied, not satisfied, or unclear.
• Who inside your company owns fixing it.
• The date of that status assessment.

Five. Have a second person build the same sheet from the same saved copies, then publish both totals and the number of rows where you disagreed. That disagreement count is the honesty check on the whole exercise. Without it, a checklist is one person's reading presented as a standard.

Six. Write the denominator arithmetic on the page. Report your readiness as a fraction with both numbers visible: satisfied out of requirements counted, as of a date, with the unsatisfied rows named. If you counted 14 requirements and satisfy 11, print 11 of 14 as of the date and list the 3. A readiness percentage with no denominator is unreadable, because 11 of 14 and 79 of 100 are different situations.

Seven. Recheck quarterly and publish the diff. Keep every previous sheet. The quarter on quarter difference is the only part of this work that nobody else has, and it is the part a careful reader will quote, because it shows the rules moving.

Eight. Treat a machine's summary of the rules as a claim. If you ask an assistant to list the considerations, date the answer, label it unverified, and check every line against your saved copy. On the record: in the aiknowsus.com audit of September 2026, Perplexity withdrew its own earlier statement about how many questions it had searched for, saying it could not honestly substantiate the claim that it had run a live search for each one, and in another batch that its claim to have searched all five was not adequately supported. Three separate batches produced that retraction.

Nine. Keep the blind rule for any visibility measurement attached to this work. If you are listing partly to be named in AI answers, the questions you use to check must never contain your brand name. On 27 July 2026 the same 78 questions were run twice on the same day for clawlaw.in. The branded wrapper returned the company first on almost every question. The blind run put it second by breadth and absent from the litigation due diligence questions it most wanted to win. The branded run was discarded because it had measured our own prompt.

What the numbers were

Inclusion considerations counted by us in GetApp's current vendor material: none, as of 29 September 2026. No count, no list, no estimate.

What we refuse to publish, and why. No consideration count from memory. No count borrowed from another page. No paraphrase of the platform's rules. No platform prices or tier contents. The reason for the last one is dated: on 17 September 2026 two clawlaw.in comparison pages stated competitors' prices with no link, no date and no source, Claude checked them independently and found them correct, and it still treated the pages as advocacy and used official sources instead.

The nearest real fraction we hold, with its sector named. 0 of 6. Across six questions in the clawlaw.in programme on 17 September 2026, no third party review or directory source made it into any answer at all, in Claude's run, and one well known review site that did appear in the raw results was discarded because the list it offered was of American products and so was not an answer to an India question. The sector is legal research software sold in India. It is not a GetApp figure and it is not a figure for another sector.

Two more counts, printed with their denominators.

• 1 of 18. Across eighteen blind commercial questions on 18 August 2026, ChatGPT made clawlaw.in the top source on exactly one. Legal research software, India.
• 161 across 24 batches and 72 conversations. On our own domain in September 2026, the phrase recording that we were not cited appears 161 times in the engines' own self audits of their answers. Perplexity.

Those two together set a realistic expectation for any listing programme. Directory presence is cheap, useful to human buyers, and not by itself the thing that gets you named in an answer.

What this cannot tell you

• It cannot tell you the current considerations. That is what your own dated read is for.
• It cannot tell you whether your submission will be accepted. A checklist measures readiness against stated rules, not a reviewer's judgement.
• A requirement count is not a difficulty measure. Fourteen simple rows can be easier than four that need legal sign off.
• It cannot separate the platform's stated rules from its unstated practice. Where they differ, you will only learn it from your own submission log.
• Our 0 of 6 and 1 of 18 are legal technology in India. They are the nearest real fractions we hold, and moving them on to another sector's page would be the exact error this batch exists to avoid.
• Nothing here promises a position in an AI answer.

Sources and change log

Sources. The checklist format, the requirement rule and the nine fields are ours. The dated results come from the clawlaw.in programme of July to September 2026, in Tier_1/GEO_BASELINE_RESULTS_2026-07-27.md, Tier_1/GEO_GAP_ANALYSIS_2026-08-18.md and Tier_1/claude_response_17_09_audit.md, and from the aiknowsus.com audit of September 2026 across 24 batches and 72 conversations, counted by a script over the capture files rather than from memory. Of those, the pricing page and app store findings can be checked from outside today. The capture wide counts cannot, until the captures are published.

Change log. 29 September 2026, first publication, stating that no dated consideration count exists. When the read is done, this section will carry the four documents with their URLs and read dates, the requirement total, the preference total, the disagreement count between two readers, and the readiness fraction with both numbers visible.

Common questions

Can we reuse the checklist we built for another directory?

Reuse the format, never the rows. The nine fields and the requirement rule transfer. The considerations themselves are specific to one platform and one version of one page, which is why each row carries its own URL and read date.

How long does building this checklist take?

Reading four documents carefully and writing the rows takes an afternoon. The second reader takes another hour. The quarterly recheck takes twenty minutes once the first sheet exists. Almost all of the time goes on deciding whether a row is a requirement or a preference, which is why that rule is written down before you start.

Is it worth listing if our category on the platform is thin?

A thin category can be easier to be visible in and may carry little buyer traffic. We have not measured traffic on any directory and will not guess. What you can do is check the category page yourself as a signed out visitor, count how many products are in it, and record that count with the date, which is a fact you will be glad to have next year.

Does a listing help an assistant describe us correctly?

It can, because it is another public page stating your facts, and in our September 2026 capture the most cited domains were official documentation and vendors' own websites. It can also hurt, if the profile carries an old price or an old feature list that contradicts your site. Keep one sheet of every public place your facts appear and recheck it quarterly.

What should we fix first if we fail several requirements?

Fix the ones that are also true of your own website: a working product page, a stated price or pricing model, a support contact, and a plain description of the category in buyers' words. Those earn their keep whether or not the listing is approved.

What to do first

Open the four documents today, save a copy of each, and start the sheet with nine columns. Mark each row requirement or preference under the written rule, then print your readiness as satisfied out of requirements counted, as of today's date. Put a recheck reminder in the calendar for three months from now, and keep this first sheet even after it is out of date, because the diff is the valuable part.