Too Much Choice, Not Enough Verification (www.aivojournal.org)

Over the past six months more than a hundred new platforms have begun claiming to measure “AI visibility” — offering scores and dashboards that purport to show how brands appear across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and other agents. But AIVO’s Governance Commentary warns this boom has produced fragmentation, not clarity: trackers use proprietary, undisclosed indices and sampling methods, omit model versions and query protocols, and publish no reproducibility tolerances. AIVO’s review found identical queries returning visibility scores from 42% to 68% across three leading dashboards. The result: marketing teams reallocating budgets on unverified signals, investors and auditors facing unverifiable metrics, and organizations exposed to “visibility drift” — a governance problem analogous to pre‑standard accounting and early ESG reporting failures. AIVO proposes a remedy: the AIVO Standard, which sets a ±5% reproducibility tolerance and a unified Prompt‑Space Occupancy Score (PSOS™) that quantifies how often and how consistently a brand appears in generative responses. PSOS normalizes outputs across models with model‑specific weighting and explicit version identifiers, creating comparable, auditable visibility data. The commentary argues the market will consolidate around tools that can be independently verified — the audit layer, not flashy dashboards, will become the true moat — and calls on enterprises and auditors to adopt verification standards before metrics inflation undermines trust in AI discovery.