Research

What we found after scanning thousands of real stores

We run automated scans on Shopify and DTC stores to understand how AI shopping agents actually read, evaluate, and recommend them. The data is live, continuously updated, and ours alone.

66,090Stores analyzed
55/100 Average AI Commerce Score™
24% AI Invisible Risk
7% High Confidence Stores
Score distribution across scanned stores in July 2026
7%High Confidence
7%Moderate Confidence
24%Low Confidence
62%AI Invisible Risk
AI Confidence Pyramid™
62%
Stores below 50 AI Commerce Score™
31%
Stores between 50 and 84 AI Commerce Score™
4,626 stores
Reached 85+ AI Commerce Score™
Average AI Commerce Score™ by category
56
Fashion
Risk: 20% · Best: 93/100
Fashion
57
Beauty
Risk: 17% · Best: 93/100
Beauty
57
Health and Wellness
Risk: 19% · Best: 94/100
Health
57
Food and Drink
Risk: 20% · Best: 87/100
Food
59
Home and Living
Risk: 15% · Best: 92/100
Home
57
Sports and Outdoor
Risk: 17% · Best: 89/100
Sports
54
Pets
Risk: 24% · Best: 84/100
Pets
57
Tech and Gadgets
Risk: 18% · Best: 93/100
Tech
56
Kids and Baby
Risk: 19% · Best: 83/100
Kids
59
Jewelry
Risk: 13% · Best: 85/100
Jewelry
AI Commerce Bar™
8Scoring factors · 0 to 49 AI Invisible Risk · 50 to 69 Low Confidence · 70 to 84 Moderate Confidence · 85 to 100 High Confidence · Live data · updated Jul 22, 2026
Research Library

Understanding AI commerce through measurement.

Explore public research built from real AI responses, large-scale store analysis and reproducible methodology.

Mechanism
Web Search Rewrites 77% of AI Product Recommendations
Turning on browsing changes 77% of recommended brands, same model, same prompts.
77% of brands changed
Read report
Mechanism: Corrected
The Fame Study, Corrected
Public fame explains 1.2% of recommendation, re-measured on 872 brands, sitting on the noise floor.
1.2% explained
Read report
Mechanism
AI Knows Your Website. It Still Won't Recommend You.
The model names the correct domain 75.9% of the time. Knowing where you are is not the same as reading your store.
75.9% domain accuracy
Read report
Mechanism
29,633 Reasons. 26,812 Unique. The Model Confabulates.
The model writes a fresh justification for every pick. Asking it why does not work.
90% unique reasons
Read report
Mechanism
Search Changes the Vocabulary, Not Just the Brands
With search on, the model names ingredients and specifications. With it off, impressions.
21x more specific
Read report
Mechanism
Candidacy vs Selection
Full population, 60,924 stores. Intent gets you into the recommended set. It wins you nothing once you're there.
R² 1.2%
Read report
Mechanism
Nothing About Your Brand Predicts Recommendation. The Model's Own Past Behavior Does.
June's position predicts July's position, the strongest signal in this entire series, and it does not drift for 15 days.
61.4% self-predictive
Read report
Mechanism: Follow-up
Two Months Later, the Model Still Agrees With Itself
50 intents, six independent sweeps across two months. 43 kept the exact same #1 brand every time.
86% locked in
Read report
Mechanism
Hand It a Rating, and It Follows Every Single Time
16 genuinely contested brand pairs. A better star rating decided the pick in 160 of 160 runs. Price barely moved it.
100% follow rating
Read report
Mechanism
We Invented a Brand With Zero History. Reviews Got It Picked Anyway
Against an entrenched category leader, a brand with no memory won 0 of 360 runs with no evidence, 53.1% once given a review score.
0% to 53.1% with reviews
Read report
Mechanism
We Widened the Fame Signal Four Ways. It Barely Moved
Wikipedia, Wikidata, domain age, and media mentions combined explain 11.2% of recommendation frequency, still far under the 61.4% self-consistency benchmark.
11.2% combined, vs 61.4%
Read report
Mechanism
The Model Hedges Most When It's Most Sure
Seven independent methods find hedged language correlates r=0.03 with real internal confidence, and is highest exactly where real confidence is highest.
r=0.03, 16/16 cross-model agreement
Read report
Mechanism
The Model Knows 6 Facts About Your Brand. It Uses One
A direct possession probe scored against 4,000 real buyer-question responses: 75.8% of possessed facts never appear in an actual recommendation.
75.8% gap rate, 9 brands
Read report
Mechanism
It Recommends You First. By Turn Four, It's Moved On
200 four-turn conversations, explicit favorable intro then two brand-blind follow-ups: 49.5% survive to the forced final pick, ranging 100% to 0% by brand.
49.5% T4 survival, 10 brands
Read report
Mechanism
Give the Model the One Fact It's Missing. The Brand Goes From Invisible to Everywhere
One real, verified fact injected into context for 4 underperforming brands, simulating successful retrieval: average mention-rate lift of 77.9 percentage points.
+77.9pp avg lift, 4 brands
Read report
Mechanism
Tell the Model You Saw an Ad. It Recommends That Brand 88% of the Time
Controlled manipulation of hidden system-message context across 5 brands: a fabricated ad-exposure claim alone beat a combined brand+real-fact condition for winner-rate lift.
88% winner rate, fabricated ad condition
Read report
Mechanism
The Model Is Almost Never Wrong About Your Brand. It Just Doesn't Say Much
Closed-book claims independently fact-checked against real sources instead of self-graded: 97.1% of checkable claims held up, but unprompted topic coverage averaged only 61.1% across 8 real attribute categories.
97.1% accurate, 61.1% depth coverage
Read report
Mechanism
The Model Had Real Web Search. It Never Once Reached for It.
Same 4 brands and facts as Fact Injection, but with real web search enabled instead of a hand-placed fact: 0 of 960 real calls invoked the search tool.
0 of 960 calls invoked search
Read report
Mechanism
We Described One Brand to the Model, Real or Invented. It Recommended That Brand Anyway.
Five escalating rounds, 1,997 real calls: 12 of 13 brands stayed near 100% candidacy no matter how the framing changed, and even a fully invented brand hit the same ceiling.
12 of 13 brands, no framing effect
Read report
Mechanism
Ask Like You're Googling It, and the AI Recommends the Brand 15.6 Points Less
A 15-cell question length and sentence-type grid plus 7 writer-style personas, 704 calls, same facts throughout: bare-keyword phrasing loses to a full natural-language question by the same 15.6 points in both tests.
15.6pp gap, found independently twice
Read report
Mechanism
Say It Yourself, and the Model Picks You 67.5% of the Time. A Third Party Only Gets 51.1%.
Same fact, same length, three apparent sources: the brand itself, a neutral description, an independent third party. Tested twice, 3,200 calls total, round 2 rebuilt to rule out a wording confound. Self-claim still wins most in every brand.
67.5% vs 51.1% vs 30.4%, both rounds
Read report
Mechanism
Specific Claims Add 15.7 Points in Spec Driven Categories. They Cost Nearly 5 in Trust Driven Ones.
Same real facts, rewritten as vague marketing copy or as concrete, PDP style claims. 8 brands, 3 rounds, 3,600 calls: specificity adds 15.7 points in purely functional categories and costs close to 5 in trust and safety sensitive ones.
+15.7pp functional, -4.5pp trust, 8 brands
Read report
Mechanism
Give It the Better Rating, and It Wins 91% of the Time
Rating, claim specificity, and message format, all tested at once for the first time, competitor also carrying real information. 4 brands, 2 rounds, 6,400 calls: rating decides the winner 90.8% of the time regardless of the other two.
90.8% follows rating, +5.8pp specificity
Read report
Mechanism
Mention It Was Featured Somewhere, and It Wins 85% of the Time. Bring In a Rating, and It Nearly Disappears.
Winner vs Loser's own named follow-up: a disclosed-synthetic third-party mention, tested alone and then crossed against rating in a full 2x2. 4 brands, 2 phases, 2 rounds, 4,800 calls: strong alone, almost swamped once rating is in the room.
85.2% alone, +1.5pp once rating disagrees
Read report
Mechanism
Claim the Brand Is Widely Known, and It Wins 80% of the Time. Bring In a Rating, and the Edge Is Nearly Gone.
Authority's direct sibling: a bare, unsourced claim of broad recognition, no named third party, tested the same two-phase way. 4 brands, 2 phases, 2 rounds, 4,800 calls: strong alone, the most completely swamped signal measured against rating so far.
79.8% alone, +0.2pp once rating disagrees
Read report
Mechanism
The Cited Source Changes. The Winner Almost Never Does.
Live Retrieval's direct follow-up: real product categories, open-ended prompts, live search on. 8 categories, 2 rounds, 320 calls: winner stability held near 90% even as which exact page got cited moved far more.
90% winner stability, diff not significant (p=0.25)
Read report
Mechanism
Two Signals Get You Most of the Way There. A Third Barely Helps, and Format Doesn't Move It at All
Synthesizes winner-vs-loser, authority-signal, brand-familiarity, and pdp-specificity: authority, familiarity, specificity, and format tested against each other with rating removed entirely. 12 conditions, 2 rounds, 9,600 calls: specificity leads, format's own effect rounds to zero, two signals already get you most of the way there.
+3.25pp specificity, strongest marginal signal
Read report
Mechanism
We Turned the Same Facts Into Bullets. The Model Cited Fewer of Them.
A third, most direct test of the format signal: same 3 facts per brand, only the separator changes, prose paragraph vs bulleted list. 4 brands, 2 rounds, 1,600 calls: structured format cites fewer facts and reuses less vocabulary than prose, not more.
-5.2pp citation rate, structured vs prose
Read report
Mechanism
Authority Adds 9 Points in Trust Categories. Familiarity Adds 14.
The direct counterpart to PDP Specificity: reruns authority and familiarity on 8 brands, 4 functional, 4 trust sensitive, splitting the result by category from the start. Opposite pattern from specificity, social proof helps trust categories more, not less. 6,400 calls, 2 independent rounds.
+9.1pp authority, +13.8pp familiarity, trust vs functional
Read report
Mechanism
Reword the Question Three Ways. The Winner Mostly Stays the Same.
Direct follow-up to Source Stability, testing a specific LinkedIn objection: does stability depend on wording, not just literal repeats. Same 8 categories, 3 phrasings each, 2 independent rounds, 240 live search calls. Not significant in either round alone.
+3.1pp combined, p=0.063, not confirmed
Read report
Mechanism
Rating Recommendations Don't Move When You Reword the Question. Price Recommendations Do.
Closes the price/specs gap Recommendation Confidence's own limitations flagged. Identical Method 6 design rerun on price and specs signals, 1,600 gpt-4o calls. Rating's published 0-flip result does not generalize.
7/16 price flipped (sig.), 2/16 specs (not sig.)
Read report
Mechanism
A Bad Rating Barely Touches Candidacy. It Wrecks the Final Round.
Tests a LinkedIn commenter's claim that AI pre-filters bad actors before they're ever mentioned. 4 brands reused from Winner vs Loser, neutral vs. negative reputation, two probes. The result is the opposite of pre-filtering.
Candidacy +15.5pp, selection -59.2pp
Read report
Mechanism
Mark the Listing Sponsored, and It Loses 18.4 Points in a Head-to-Head Pick
Adjudicates two conflicting outside numbers, Zhao Hanbo's near-zero ad effect vs. Allouah et al.'s active penalty. Same 4 brands, one label swapped: standard result vs. Sponsored result, forced two-way comparison.
Organic 74.2%, sponsored 55.8% (-18.4pp)
Read report
Mechanism
Match the Sponsored Listing to the Search Term, and the Penalty Overshoots by 21 Points
Direct follow-up to Sponsored Tag Penalty. One sentence echoing the exact search term into a sponsored listing didn't just recover the 18.4pp penalty, it beat the organic baseline outright.
Static 55.8% -> query-matched 95.2% (+39.4pp)
Read report
Mechanism
Rank First in the Cited Source, and the Model Always Agrees. Fourth Place Wins 1.2% of the Time.
Inspired by a LinkedIn exchange with Olga Vainshtok. Same 4 brands, one synthetic 17-slot roundup source, only the target's rank inside it moved. Candidacy barely drops with position. Selection collapses to almost nothing past rank 1.
Selection 100% (rank 1) -> 1.2% (rank 4) -> 0% (rank 15)
Read report
Mechanism
Under 4.1 Stars, the Model Ignores an Unknown Brand. At 4.9 Stars It Picks It 85% of the Time.
Direct follow-up to Cold Start. 36 intents, 11 fixed doses of review evidence for an unknown brand against the category's default pick. The rating is the lever and has a threshold, the review count decides whether the model believes it. Rating alone wins 26.4%, count alone 2.5%.
Selection 2.2% (4.1 stars) -> 18.1% (4.4) -> 84.7% (4.9)
Read report
Mechanism
In a Ranked Source, the Higher-Ranked Brand Wins 100% of the Time, Even Against the Model's Favorite.
Position, not brand, decides inside a ranked source. An unknown brand ranked #1 beats the model's favorite 100%, ranked one place lower 0%. No gradient across 14 places; instruction, placement and real brands change nothing; the same list unordered gives 0.8%.
Ranked #1 100% · ranked #2 0% · unordered list 0.8%
Read report
Mechanism
Press Coverage Moves the Model Only When It Answers the Exact Question Asked. Generic: 1.9%. Matching: 80.6%.
A press mention does nothing on its own (1.9%). Naming the brand for the exact question asked wins 80.6%; the same endorsement for an adjacent use case or another category wins 0%. Press carrying verifiable facts performs like showing them directly (52.8% vs 51.9%).
Generic 1.9% · exact query 80.6% · adjacent 0%
Read report
Mechanism
Describe a Company by Its Side Feature and It Falls Off the AI Shortlist: 82.8% to 24.0%. The Model Still Names Its Category Correctly.
Describe the company by a side feature and it falls off the shortlist: 82.8% when the core leads, 24.0% when the side feature dominates. The model still names the core category correctly (100%), and stating the primary category does not repair it (27.5%). Weight and order of the evidence both matter.
Core leads 82.8% · side feature dominates 24.0% · core named 100%
Read report
Mechanism
Reviews Four Years Old Count as No Reviews at All: 0%. Five Hundred Fresh Ones Beat Thirty Thousand Old Ones, 72.8% to 1.4%.
Same rating, same count, only the age of the reviews changes. 500 reviews from the last 3 months: 72.8%. Undated: 50.8%. All posted 4 years ago: 0.0%, the same as no evidence. 30,000 old reviews: 1.4%. A fall in the last 3 months' rating overrides the overall rating.
Fresh 72.8% · undated 50.8% · 4 years old 0.0% · 30,000 old 1.4%
Read report
Key Findings

What the data actually shows

The model remembers itself.
The model remembers itself.
Previous recommendations predict future recommendations better than store quality, brand fame or web presence.
View Study
Web Search rewrites recommendations.
Web Search rewrites recommendations.
Enabling web search changed 77% of recommended brands, even with the same prompts and model.
View Study
Store quality doesn't predict recommendations.
Store quality doesn't predict recommendations.
High-quality stores are not automatically recommended by AI shopping systems.
View Study
AI Invisible Risk is real.
AI Invisible Risk is real.
Many stores remain effectively invisible to AI recommendations despite being fully operational.
View Study
Recommendation rankings stay stable.
Recommendation rankings stay stable.
Recommendation rankings showed virtually no measurable drift across a 15-day period.
View Study
Recognition isn't recommendation.
Recognition isn't recommendation.
AI can recognize and understand a brand without ever recommending it.
View Study
Memory beats web presence.
Memory beats web presence.
The model's own history explains recommendations better than external brand signals.
View Study
Big brands aren't guaranteed winners.
Big brands aren't guaranteed winners.
Well-known brands often outperform in visibility, but not necessarily in AI readiness.
View Study
Visibility isn't enough.
Visibility isn't enough.
Being discoverable by AI doesn't guarantee being selected as a recommendation.
View Study
Trust is cumulative.
Trust is cumulative.
Recommendation confidence emerges from many small trust signals rather than a single optimization.
View Study
Intent changes the outcome.
Intent changes the outcome.
The same brand can perform very differently depending on what the shopper is asking.
View Study
Industries behave differently.
Industries behave differently.
Each e-commerce category follows its own recommendation dynamics under the same methodology.
View Study
AI commerce is measurable.
AI commerce is measurable.
Recommendation behavior can be studied through controlled experiments and repeatable measurements.
View Study
Monitoring isn't always necessary.
Monitoring isn't always necessary.
Stable recommendation rankings suggest that continuous daily monitoring often adds little value.
View Study
Every recommendation has a pattern.
Every recommendation has a pattern.
AI recommendations are not random. They follow measurable, repeatable behavior across large datasets.
View Study
Two months later, it still agrees with itself.
Two months later, it still agrees with itself.
86% of 50 tracked intents kept the exact same #1 brand across six independent sweeps, June to August.
View Study
Hand it a rating, and it follows every single time.
Hand it a rating, and it follows every single time.
Across 16 contested brand pairs, a better star rating decided the pick in 160 of 160 runs. A better price barely moved it.
View Study
A brand with no memory won 0 of 360 runs. Reviews changed that.
A brand with no memory won 0 of 360 runs. Reviews changed that.
Against an entrenched category leader, an invented brand never won with no evidence. Give it a review score, and it wins 53.1% of the time.
View Study
We widened the fame signal four ways. It barely moved.
We widened the fame signal four ways. It barely moved.
Wikipedia, Wikidata, domain age, and media mentions, none individually significant. Combined, 11.2%, still far under the model's own 61.4% self-consistency.
View Study
The model hedges most when it's most sure.
The model hedges most when it's most sure.
Hedged language correlates r=0.03 with real internal confidence, seven independent methods, GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini all agree.
View Study
The model knows 6 facts. It uses one.
The model knows 6 facts. It uses one.
The model can recall six facts about a brand unprompted, but deploys just one of them, on average, at the moment it actually recommends.
View Study
It recommends you first. By turn four, it's moved on.
It recommends you first. By turn four, it's moved on.
Across 200 four-turn conversations and 10 brands, only 49.5% of turn-one leaders were still the recommendation by turn four.
View Study
Give it the one fact it's missing. The brand goes from invisible to everywhere.
Give it the one fact it's missing. The brand goes from invisible to everywhere.
Injecting a single missing fact at the decision point lifted recommendation rate by as much as 96 percentage points, across 4 brands.
View Study
Tell it you saw an ad. It recommends that brand 88% of the time.
Tell it you saw an ad. It recommends that brand 88% of the time.
Planting fabricated ad exposure in the conversation history outperformed nearly every other context condition tested, across 375 model calls.
View Study
It's almost never wrong about your brand. It just doesn't say much.
It's almost never wrong about your brand. It just doesn't say much.
97.1% of unprompted brand claims held up against independent verification, but topic coverage averaged only 61.1% across 8 real attribute categories, 9 brands.
View Study
It had real web search. It never once reached for it.
It had real web search. It never once reached for it.
Across 960 real calls with search enabled, the model invoked the tool zero times. A diagnostic confirms it works, just not for this prompt style.
View Study
We described one brand to the model, real or invented. It recommended that brand anyway.
We described one brand to the model, real or invented. It recommended that brand anyway.
Across 5 rounds and 1,997 real calls, 12 of 13 brands sat near 100% candidacy no matter how the framing changed, even a fully made-up brand.
View Study
Ask like you're Googling it. The AI recommends the brand 15.6 points less.
Ask like you're Googling it. The AI recommends the brand 15.6 points less.
A length and sentence-type grid and 7 writer-style personas, 704 calls, same facts throughout: bare-keyword phrasing lost to a full natural-language question by 15.6 points in both tests, found independently.
View Study
Say it yourself, and the model picks you 67.5% of the time. A third party only gets 51.1%.
Say it yourself, and the model picks you 67.5% of the time. A third party only gets 51.1%.
Same fact, same length, only who appears to be saying it changes. Tested twice, 3,200 calls total, round 2 rebuilt to remove a wording confound found in round 1. Self-claim beats third-party beats a source-free neutral statement, in every single brand.
View Study
Specific claims add 15.7 points in spec driven categories. They cost nearly 5 in trust driven ones.
Specific claims add 15.7 points in spec driven categories. They cost nearly 5 in trust driven ones.
Same real facts, rewritten as vague marketing copy or concrete PDP style claims. 8 brands, 3 rounds, 3,600 calls total: specificity helps reliably in purely functional categories and stops helping, or reverses, in trust and safety sensitive ones.
View Study
Give it the better rating, and it wins 91% of the time. Two signals we thought would matter next, barely do.
Give it the better rating, and it wins 91% of the time. Two signals we thought would matter next, barely do.
Rating, claim specificity, and message format, tested together for the first time, competitor also carrying real information. 4 brands, 2 rounds, 6,400 calls: rating decides the winner 90.8% of the time regardless of the other two.
View Study
Mention it was featured somewhere, and it wins 85% of the time. Bring in a rating, and that edge nearly disappears.
Mention it was featured somewhere, and it wins 85% of the time. Bring in a rating, and that edge nearly disappears.
Winner vs Loser's own named follow-up: a disclosed-synthetic third-party mention, tested alone and then crossed against rating in a full 2x2. 4 brands, 2 phases, 2 rounds, 4,800 calls: strong alone, almost swamped once rating is in the room.
View Study
Claim the brand is widely known, and it wins 80% of the time. Bring in a rating, and the edge is nearly gone.
Claim the brand is widely known, and it wins 80% of the time. Bring in a rating, and the edge is nearly gone.
Authority's direct sibling: a bare, unsourced claim of broad recognition, no named third party, tested the same two-phase way. 4 brands, 2 phases, 2 rounds, 4,800 calls: strong alone, the most completely swamped signal measured against rating so far.
View Study
The cited source changes. The winner almost never does.
The cited source changes. The winner almost never does.
Live Retrieval's direct follow-up, real categories and live search on. 8 categories, 2 rounds, 320 calls: winner stability held near 90% even as which exact page got cited moved far more.
View Study
Two signals get you most of the way there. A third barely helps, and format doesn't move it at all.
Two signals get you most of the way there. A third barely helps, and format doesn't move it at all.
Synthesizes 4 prior studies: authority, familiarity, specificity, and format tested against each other with rating removed. 12 conditions, 2 rounds, 9,600 calls: specificity leads, format's own effect rounds to zero.
View Study
We turned the same facts into bullets. The model cited fewer of them.
We turned the same facts into bullets. The model cited fewer of them.
A third, most direct test of the format signal: same 3 facts per brand, only the separator changes. 4 brands, 2 rounds, 1,600 calls: structured format cites fewer facts and reuses less vocabulary than prose, not more.
View Study
Authority adds 9 points in trust categories. Familiarity adds 14.
Authority adds 9 points in trust categories. Familiarity adds 14.
PDP Specificity's direct counterpart: reruns authority and familiarity split by category from the start. 8 brands, 2 rounds, 6,400 calls: social proof helps trust categories more, the opposite of specificity.
View Study
Reword the question three ways. The winner mostly stays the same.
Reword the question three ways. The winner mostly stays the same.
Direct follow-up to Source Stability, testing a LinkedIn objection that stability depends on wording. 8 categories, 3 phrasings each, 2 rounds, 240 calls: not significant in either round alone.
View Study
Rating recommendations don't move when you reword the question. Price recommendations do.
Rating recommendations don't move when you reword the question. Price recommendations do.
Closes a gap Recommendation Confidence's own limitations flagged: its 0-flip phrasing-stability result was rating-signal only. Same design rerun on price and specs, 1,600 calls: price flips 7 of 16 intents (significant), specs flips 2 of 16 (not significant).
View Study
A bad rating barely touches candidacy. It wrecks the final round.
A bad rating barely touches candidacy. It wrecks the final round.
Tests a LinkedIn commenter's claim that AI pre-filters bad actors before a mention happens. 4 brands, neutral vs. negative reputation, two probes: candidacy rate rose 39.0% to 54.5% (3 of 4 brands), forced-selection win rate collapsed 83.5% to 24.3%. The opposite of pre-filtering.
View Study
Mark the listing sponsored, and it loses 18.4 points in a head-to-head pick.
Mark the listing sponsored, and it loses 18.4 points in a head-to-head pick.
Adjudicates two conflicting outside numbers on paid placement: Zhao Hanbo's near-zero ChatGPT ad effect vs. Allouah et al.'s active penalty finding. Same 4 brands, one label swapped: organic won 74.2%, sponsored won 55.8%, an 18.4pp penalty on all 4 brands.
View Study
Match the sponsored listing to the search term, and the penalty overshoots by 21 points.
Match the sponsored listing to the search term, and the penalty overshoots by 21 points.
Direct follow-up to the Sponsored Tag Penalty. One sentence echoing the exact search term into a sponsored listing didn't just recover the 18.4pp penalty, it closed 214% of the gap: static 55.8%, organic reference 74.2%, query-matched 95.2%.
View Study
Rank first in the cited source, and the model always agrees. Fourth place wins 1.2% of the time.
Rank first in the cited source, and the model always agrees. Fourth place wins 1.2% of the time.
Inspired by a LinkedIn exchange with Olga Vainshtok. Same 4 brands, one synthetic 17-slot roundup source, only the target's rank inside it moved (1st, 4th, or 15th). Selection rate: 100%, 1.2%, 0%. Candidacy barely moves: 100%, 40%, 35.2%. Being cited isn't the win condition, being cited first is.
View Study
Under 4.1 stars, the model ignores an unknown brand. At 4.9 stars it picks it 85% of the time.
Under 4.1 stars, the model ignores an unknown brand. At 4.9 stars it picks it 85% of the time.
Direct follow-up to Cold Start. 36 intents, 11 fixed doses of review evidence for an unknown brand against the category's default pick. Rating at 500 reviews: 3.8 stars 0%, 4.1 stars 2.2%, 4.4 stars 18.1%, 4.7 stars 62.5%, 4.9 stars 84.7%. Review count at 4.7 stars: 5 reviews 2.8%, 25 reviews 22.2%, 100 reviews 52.5%. Rating alone 26.4%, count alone 2.5%. The rating is the lever, the count decides whether the model believes it.
View Study
In a Ranked Source, the Higher-Ranked Brand Wins 100% of the Time, Even Against the Model's Favorite.
In a Ranked Source, the Higher-Ranked Brand Wins 100% of the Time, Even Against the Model's Favorite.
36 intents, 36 conditions, 12,720 gpt-4o runs. An unknown brand ranked #1 in a source beats the category's default pick 100% of the time; ranked #2, 0%; with no source, 0%. No gradient from adjacent ranks to a 14-place gap. Removing the instruction, moving the source to the user message and using real brands change nothing. The same brands in an unordered list: 0.8%. A sponsored label cuts rank 1 to 77.8%.
View Study
Press Coverage Moves the Model Only When It Answers the Exact Question Asked. Generic: 1.9%. Matching: 80.6%.
Press Coverage Moves the Model Only When It Answers the Exact Question Asked. Generic: 1.9%. Matching: 80.6%.
36 intents, 9 conditions, 3,240 gpt-4o runs. An unknown brand against the category's default pick: generic press 1.9%; press naming it a top choice in the category 15.0%, for an adjacent use case 0.0%, for a different category 0.0%, for the exact query 80.6%. Press reporting 4.7 stars across 500 reviews 52.8%, like the same rating shown directly (51.9%). Exact query plus facts 96.9%.
View Study
Describe a Company by Its Side Feature and It Falls Off the AI Shortlist: 82.8% to 24.0%. The Model Still Names Its Category Correctly.
Describe a Company by Its Side Feature and It Falls Off the AI Shortlist: 82.8% to 24.0%. The Model Still Names Its Category Correctly.
20 invented B2B software companies, each with a core and a side capability, competing with 11 invented rivals for a 3-name shortlist (3,800 shortlist runs, gpt-4o). Core first and core-heavy: shortlisted 82.8%. Side feature first and dominant: 24.0%. Adding a "Primary category" sentence: 27.5%. The model named the core category correctly in 100% of 1,200 forced-choice calls. A follow-up separated weight from order: both matter, weight more.
View Study
Reviews Four Years Old Count as No Reviews at All: 0%. Five Hundred Fresh Ones Beat Thirty Thousand Old Ones, 72.8% to 1.4%.
Reviews Four Years Old Count as No Reviews at All: 0%. Five Hundred Fresh Ones Beat Thirty Thousand Old Ones, 72.8% to 1.4%.
36 intents, 12 conditions, 4,320 gpt-4o runs. An unknown brand against the category's default pick, 4.7 stars everywhere; only the age of the reviews changes. 500 reviews from the last 3 months 72.8%; undated 50.8%; posted 4 years ago 0.0%. 30,000 reviews posted 4 years ago 1.4%, against 71.1% undated. A rating that falls to 3.8 stars over the last 3 months: 2.5%. Stating dates alone: 60.8%, not significant.
View Study
Research Topics

What we are studying

These are the areas where we are actively collecting data and publishing findings.

AI Visibility
Why do some stores never appear in AI-generated recommendations?
Active research
Recommendation Intelligence
What determines which brands AI chooses to recommend, and which it ignores?
Active research
Machine-Readable Trust
Which trust signals can AI actually read, verify and use during decision-making?
Active research
Agentic Commerce
How AI shopping agents discover, evaluate and purchase products across the web.
Active research
AI Commerce Benchmarks
Measuring how industries compare in AI readiness across categories and markets.
Active research
Commerce Accuracy
How product data quality affects AI understanding, confidence and recommendations.
Active research
AI Decision Science
Understanding how AI models rank, compare and choose between competing brands.
Active research
Recommendation Stability
Measuring how AI recommendations change over time, across models and retrieval systems.
Active research
Our Methodology

The AI Commerce Score Engine™

Every AI Commerce Score is calculated from eight weighted evaluation layers that measure how AI shopping agents understand, trust and recommend e-commerce stores.

Semantic Visuals & Image Clarity
15%
AI Structured Signals
15%
Core Technical & Interpretability
15%
AI Trust & Transaction Confidence
15%
Commerce & Feed Accuracy
15%
User Intent Match
10%
Recommendation Confidence
10%
External Authority Signals
5%
Explore more

Where this connects

The research sits on top of everything else we build. Here is how it links together.

See where your store stands

Free AI Commerce Score across all 8 factors.

Find out exactly what AI agents see when they evaluate your store.

Free · No signup · Results in 10 seconds
Research infrastructure · Founder Lab

Atom Foundry operates its own live Shopify store, Founder Lab, as a permanent controlled experiment. Most measurement of AI commerce is observational: you watch stores you don't control and infer what matters. Founder Lab lets us do the opposite. We own every variable, so we can change one thing at a time, a product description, a schema field, a trust signal, and watch, in real time, how AI systems respond.

What we measure there goes beyond a single score. We track how each change moves the store's AI Commerce Score™, but also which AI agents crawl the store and when, which pages they read, whether they retrieve it in live shopping answers, and how its recommendation profile shifts over time. Read the live results in the Founder Lab Log.