Skip to content
JanusLabs.Explore example report

Why trust the number?

Because it is built to be challenged. The whole method is written down.

Comparable

Fixed questions

The same basket, replayed. A change to it starts a new baseline rather than rewriting history.

Inspectable

Evidence links

Open the question, the answer and the citation behind any finding.

Honest

Uncertainty included

Read percentages alongside their counts, missing answers and uncertainty. Small differences need careful interpretation.

How the number is checked

Fictional illustrationMavren, the figures, six-service coverage and ranges below are invented examples. They are not Pilot results, customer outcomes or a current service offer.
300questions asked
14failed or unavailable
286usable answers
34named Mavren
12%34 ÷ 286
Google AI Overviews8 of 48Google AI Mode7 of 47ChatGPT web search6 of 49Gemini web5 of 46Claude4 of 48Perplexity4 of 48
Named youAnswered, did not name youFailed or unavailable

One row per surface, one cell per question. The 14 outlined cells leave the denominator entirely rather than counting as answers you were absent from — counting our outage as your bad result is the easiest way for a tool like this to lie. A zero on a row that answered is a finding; a zero on a row that failed is nothing at all.

40%22–61%
50%30–70%
0%40%80%

Two fictional readings, each from 20 questions, differ by 10 percentage points. Their illustrative ranges overlap. Overlap alone does not prove that performance is equal or that a change is real. Check the original answers, usable counts, failed readings and collection conditions before drawing a conclusion. The chosen questions are a limited sample, not a random sample of all buyers.

Read the full method