KPIs and Realistic Expectations

Honest numbers, not promises

Report: mention rate (with range) and share of voice by intent and language; citation rate and top cited domains; accuracy (percentage of key facts stated correctly); sentiment/themes; AI-referred visits and conversions (lower bound) and crawler health (200-rate on key pages). Link to business results where you can, such as demo requests from AI-referred visits, but be careful with causation. Be transparent that results vary by assistant and over time, assistants change without notice, and no one, including agencies and tools, can guarantee a placement.

A scorecard

Numbers are illustrative. Include ranges and the date so readers see the uncertainty.

Metric (Oct 2026, 60 prompts x 3 runs x 3 assistants)   Value          Trend
Mention rate (discovery prompts)                         34% (30-38%)   +6 pts
Mention rate (Hindi prompts)                             12% (9-16%)    +2 pts
Share of voice vs 5 named competitors                    18%            +3 pts
Our URL cited                                            9% of answers  +4 pts
Key facts stated correctly                               82%            +10 pts
AI-referred visits (lower bound)                         410 / month    +35%
GPTBot/ClaudeBot 200-rate on pricing + docs              99.2%          flat

Show wins and misses

Include prompts where you are absent and wrong facts still present. Leaders trust a programme that shows its gaps and what it will do about them.

Quick check: Why can no one honestly guarantee placement in AI answers?

• Assistants are non-deterministic, change often, and providers do not publish ranking rules
• Guarantees are illegal in all countries
• Because websites are not read
• Because Python forbids it