You can do both, and the way to do it is to lead with the extractable answer that wins the citation, then deliver the depth, nuance, and decision-making a summary cannot carry, which is what earns the click. The structure is answer-then-depth, not a choice between the two. Because AI summary behavior is still shifting, treat the mechanics as the current approach and worth confirming, but the principle is stable: serve both audiences in the same page rather than picking one.
The supposed conflict comes from imagining the two goals pull in opposite directions, that giving the answer up front hands it to the summary and kills the click, so you should withhold it to force people through. That backfires. Withholding the answer does not win the click, it loses the citation, and readers who sense you are hiding the answer leave rather than dig. The page ends up serving neither audience.
Leading with the answer wins the citation precisely because it gives the system a clean chunk to lift and attribute, which is how you become the named source rather than an uncredited one. That visibility is the top of the funnel under AI, and you want it.
The click is then earned by what a summary structurally cannot include. A summary gives the short answer, it does not give the reasoning, the edge cases, the trade-offs, the worked example, or the help with deciding what to actually do. A reader who gets the one-line answer from the summary but needs to apply it has a reason to click through to the page that goes deeper, and that page is yours because you are already the cited source.
So the two goals stack instead of competing: answer first to be cited, then go deep to be clicked.
Take a page and restructure it so the core answer sits cleanly at the top, then make sure everything below it delivers the depth, nuance, or decision support a one-line summary could never carry, so the reader who saw the summary still has a reason to come to you.