Only 40% of AI-cited statistics trace back to a study

We asked ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Google’s AI Overviews 200 questions that call for a number, the kind people ask every day.1Note 1A statistic is a share, rate, average, count or cost that an assistant states as fact. We left out advice (“save 20% of your income”) and prices. Then we clicked the citations, and kept clicking. Here is one trail, from the answer to the end. Google AI Overviews What percentage of salespeople give up after one follow-up? 44% of salespeople give up after just one follow-up attempt.1 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% of salespeople give up after one follow-up attempt (source). 80 Percent of Sales Require 5 Follow-up Calls after Meeting; 44 Percent Salespeople Give Up After One Follow-up No study behind itNo survey, no sample, no date. In the answer Every assistant got the same question: “What percentage of salespeople give up after one follow-up?” All five assistants gave the same figure, and only ChatGPT said the evidence behind it was unclear. Every assistant got the same question: “What percentage of salespeople give up after one follow-up?” All five assistants gave the same figure, and only ChatGPT said the evidence behind it was unclear. One click in Google AI Overviews cited a sales firm’s stats page, from 2020. The number is right there. Its “source” link goes to a writing sample. Google AI Overviews cited a sales firm’s stats page, from 2020. The number is right there. Its “source” link goes to a writing sample. Two clicks in That leads to a freelance writer’s sample article, online by 2017. The number is in its headline. It lists two slide decks, a blog list and two news stories. None is a study of follow-ups. That leads to a freelance writer’s sample article, online by 2017. The number is in its headline. It lists two slide decks, a blog list and two news stories. None is a study of follow-ups. The end of the trail That’s where it ends. No survey, no sample, no study: every other route to this number we tried stopped at a page that cites no research. It’s a number still walking around with nothing underneath it. That’s a zombie stat. That’s where it ends. No survey, no sample, no study: every other route to this number we tried stopped at a page that cites no research. It’s a number still walking around with nothing underneath it. That’s a zombie stat. Most numbers aren’t zombies. But you can’t tell from the answer: a zombie arrives with the same confidence and the same citation, and here, with all five assistants agreeing. So we did the same for 1,285 statistics. We took a random sample of the statistics each assistant cited, 1,285 in all, and walked every trail the same way: the cited page, then that page’s source, up to five pages deep.2Note 2Each assistant’s sample was drawn at random from the statistics it cited: ChatGPT 108, Perplexity 277, Gemini 300, Claude 300, Google AI Overviews 300. The five-assistant rate weights each assistant by how many cited statistics it quoted, so it describes the statistics people were shown. Where a page named a source without a link, we searched for it. 40% reached a study that says the same thing. Another 8% reached the study, but the number or its context had changed on the way. The rest never got there: 40% stopped at a source we couldn’t check, because it was locked, gone or silent on the number, and 11% led nowhere at all.3Note 3An AI model judged every trail, and a stronger one re-judged 300. Then people re-checked 150 trails at random, with a third check wherever the two disagreed. People found originals the model missed: by the model alone, 23% were sourced. Every rate here is corrected with the hand checks, and its range carries the uncertainty from both. Four in ten trails reached a study that says the same thing Each square is one in a hundred of the 1,285 statistics we traced, sorted by where its trail ended. 40%SourcedWe found the study, and it says the same thing. 8%ChangedWe found the study, but the number, who was asked, where or when is different. 40%Can’t checkA page names a real source, but the number isn’t in it, or the source is locked or gone. 11%NowhereNo study anywhere on the trail. Every page repeats the number and credits no one. The last 1%: trails whose pages wouldn’t load for us. ChatGPT did best, and quoted the fewest numbers: 1.3 per answer, against 6.8 for Claude. The other four landed between 38% and 46%, too close to rank. ChatGPT quoted the fewest numbers, and sourced the most The same hundred squares for each assistant, from its own sample of cited statistics. ChatGPT 57% sourced 1.3 statistics per answer ChatGPT 57% sourced 1.3 statistics per answer Perplexity 46% sourced 2.2 statistics per answer Perplexity 46% sourced 2.2 statistics per answer AI Overviews 39% sourced 4.8 statistics per answer AI Overviews 39% sourced 4.8 statistics per answer Gemini 38% sourced 6.2 statistics per answer Gemini 38% sourced 6.2 statistics per answer Claude 38% sourced 6.8 statistics per answer Claude 38% sourced 6.8 statistics per answer It isn’t a quirk of our questions. Of 300 statistics in Google AI Overviews answers to real everyday searches, 40% were sourced, the same share.4Note 4Google AI Overviews answers to 52,930 everyday English searches that Trakkr tracked between 25 September 2026 and 25 October 2026. 4.4% carried a statistic, and we traced 300 of those the same way. Only counts and rates leave our systems. Most of the time, the AI wasn’t making numbers up: the page it cited had the figure 82% of the time. The trouble is which page. Only 21% of the pages cited for a number were the research itself. More than half were company blogs. Add news stories and statistics roundups, and most citations land on pages built to collect figures from elsewhere, often without a link back. Where the trail starts decides where it ends Every page an assistant cited first for a number, by kind. Each column’s width is its share of those citations. Green is how often its trails reached a study that says the same thing. Research firm13% of citations Government7% of citations Company blog54% of citations News10% of citations Stats roundup8% of citations Other8% of citations Where the trail starts decides where it ends. From a research firm or a government page, it reached a matching study 61% of the time. From a company blog, 37%; from a statistics roundup, 35%. Even research firms fell short 38% of the time, often because the full report sat behind a form. A citation tells you where the AI found a number, not where the number came from. Reaching the study didn’t always mean the number held. Of the statistics that got there, 17% had changed on the way. The digits moved only about one time in four. Usually it was the context: what was measured, the year, the source, or who was asked. What changed, across every change we logged Fifteen women judging health websites become every website’s first impression. Three companies become a rule of business. Here are the clearest trails we followed, each one checked by hand.5Note 5We name the original studies. The pages that repeated them are described by type, not named. Every step in these trails was checked by hand on the open web, with archived copies kept. Watch a number lose its context Each trail runs from the original study to an answer an assistant gave in October 2026. Step along it: the number stays, and the words around it change. AskedWhat percentage of first impressions of a website are design-related? 2004Sillence and colleagues, CHI 2018A company press release 2024A business magazine column 2026Google AI Overviews The study · Sillence and colleagues, CHI, 2004 Of the comments 15 women made about rejecting or mistrusting health websites, 94% were about design. The study · Sillence and colleagues, CHI, 2004 Of the comments 15 women made about rejecting or mistrusting health websites, 94% were about design. Repeated “Research shows us that 94 percent of people notice the look-and-feel of a website or application first” What changedComments about rejecting health sites become what people notice first Repeated “Research shows us that 94 percent of people notice the look-and-feel of a website or application first” What changedComments about rejecting health sites become what people notice first Repeated “Since 94% of first impressions are related to design, leveraging captivating visuals across your brand's website…” What changedNow 94% of all first impressions Repeated “Since 94% of first impressions are related to design, leveraging captivating visuals across your brand's website…” What changedNow 94% of all first impressions The answer “About 94% of a website's first impressions are design-related.” What changedStated as fact for every website The answer “About 94% of a website's first impressions are design-related.” What changedStated as fact for every website A 2004 study watched 15 British women judge health websites, and 94% of their comments about rejecting a site were about design. Twenty years of retelling made it “94% of first impressions are design-related”, and Google AI Overviews states it as fact. Ask five assistants the same question and you’ll often get five different numbers. On 28 of the 71 questions where all five gave a percentage, we got four or five different figures.6Note 6We compared each assistant’s headline figure for the same question. A range counts at its middle, and figures within 2 points count as the same. One question, five answers, from 49% to 96% Asked “What percentage of marketers use marketing automation tools?”, word for word, on the same day. ChatGPTThere isn’t one universal figure, it varies by survey and what counts as “marketing automation.” One commonly cited survey found 62% of U.S. digital marketers used automation software, but that data is from 2020, so it may not reflect current adoption. ChatGPTThere isn’t one universal figure, it varies by survey and what counts as “marketing automation.” One commonly cited survey found 62% of U.S. digital marketers used automation software, but that data is from 2020, so it may not reflect current adoption. PerplexityApproximately 81% of marketing organizations use marketing automation. PerplexityApproximately 81% of marketing organizations use marketing automation. GeminiAcross major industry benchmarks, between 70% and 79% of marketers and companies use marketing automation tools in some capacity GeminiAcross major industry benchmarks, between 70% and 79% of marketers and companies use marketing automation tools in some capacity Claude96% of marketers have used a marketing automation platform or plan to use one Claude96% of marketers have used a marketing automation platform or plan to use one AI OverviewsRoughly 49% to 51% of companies and marketing teams currently use marketing automation tools, according to industry benchmarks from Moosend and related research studies. AI OverviewsRoughly 49% to 51% of companies and marketing teams currently use marketing automation tools, according to industry benchmarks from Moosend and related research studies. It wasn’t one odd question. The typical gap between the highest figure and the lowest was 16 points. On 31 of 71 questions, the five figures were 20 points or more apart Every question where all five gave a percentage, one line each, from the lowest figure to the highest. Closest at the top. Agreement feels like proof. It isn’t. All five gave the same figure on 10 questions, and of the 5 we traced, 2 were sourced. The statistics they repeated most, quoted by three or more, did no better: 11 of 29. And four were quoted by all five assistants, with no study anywhere behind them. Quoted by all five. Sourced by none. Four statistics every assistant gave us, each with a trail that ends at a page citing no research. 44% Salespeople who give up after one follow-up Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1. Quoted by all five Salespeople who give up after one follow-up Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1. Quoted by all five 90% Social media users who follow at least one brand Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found. Quoted by all five Social media users who follow at least one brand Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found. Quoted by all five 75% Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found. Quoted by all five Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found. Quoted by all five 5 to 25 times How much more it costs to win a customer than to keep one A 2014 Harvard Business Review article gives the range “depending on which study you believe”, and names none. Quoted by all five How much more it costs to win a customer than to keep one A 2014 Harvard Business Review article gives the range “depending on which study you believe”, and names none. Quoted by all five The 29 statistics AI repeats most Each was quoted by at least three of the five assistants, most often first, and its trail checked by hand. 95% Generative AI pilots that fail to deliver a measurable financial return MIT NANDA’s 2025 report says 95% of organizations got no return from generative AI. That isn’t the same as 95% of pilots failing. 5 of 5ChangedStudy from 2025 Generative AI pilots that fail to deliver a measurable financial return MIT NANDA’s 2025 report says 95% of organizations got no return from generative AI. That isn’t the same as 95% of pilots failing. 44% Salespeople who give up after one follow-up Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1. 5 of 5Nowhere Salespeople who give up after one follow-up Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1. 4% to 10% Unhappy customers who actually complain Goes back to TARP’s 1979 research for the White House consumer office. Its author says rates that low apply to small purchases; in 2016, 22% to 41% complained about their most serious problem. 5 of 5ChangedStudy from 1979 Unhappy customers who actually complain Goes back to TARP’s 1979 research for the White House consumer office. Its author says rates that low apply to small purchases; in 2016, 22% to 41% complained about their most serious problem. 2 hours 21 minutes Time people spend on social media each day DataReportal’s Digital 2025 report, from GWI survey data: the typical internet user spends 2 hours 21 minutes a day on social media. 5 of 5SourcedStudy from 2025 Time people spend on social media each day DataReportal’s Digital 2025 report, from GWI survey data: the typical internet user spends 2 hours 21 minutes a day on social media. 46% Google searches with local intent Traces to a 2018 social post about a slide at a search conference. Google never published it, as far as we could find. 5 of 5Can’t check Google searches with local intent Traces to a 2018 social post about a slide at a search conference. Google never published it, as far as we could find. 90% Social media users who follow at least one brand Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found. 5 of 5Nowhere Social media users who follow at least one brand Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found. 94% First impressions of a website that are about its design Began as a 2004 study of how 15 women judged health websites. Its full trail is in chapter 4. 5 of 5ChangedStudy from 2004 First impressions of a website that are about its design Began as a 2004 study of how 15 women judged health websites. Its full trail is in chapter 4. 75% Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found. 5 of 5Nowhere Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found. If you use them 1 Follow the citation, then follow it again. If the cited page is a list of statistics or a company blog, use its own link to go one page further. Keep going until you reach the study itself, or until you can’t. Follow the citation, then follow it again. If the cited page is a list of statistics or a company blog, use its own link to go one page further. Keep going until you reach the study itself, or until you can’t. 2 Check who was asked, how many, and when. Most of the changes we found were in the context, not the digits: one country’s poll, a ten-year-old study, fifteen people. Check who was asked, how many, and when. Most of the changes we found were in the context, not the digits: one country’s poll, a ten-year-old study, fifteen people. 3 Don’t take agreement as a check. Five assistants giving the same number isn’t five sources. The numbers they repeated most were no better sourced than the rest. Don’t take agreement as a check. Five assistants giving the same number isn’t five sources. The numbers they repeated most were no better sourced than the rest. If you publish them 1 Put the method next to the number. The sample, the date and a link to the source, on the same page as the figure, so the next page, and the next answer, can trace it back to you. Put the method next to the number. The sample, the date and a link to the source, on the same page as the figure, so the next page, and the next answer, can trace it back to you. 2 Keep the findings in the open. Reports behind a form were a common dead end: even trails that started at a research firm fell short 38% of the time. Put the headline numbers and the method on an open page. Keep the findings in the open. Reports behind a form were a common dead end: even trails that started at a research firm fell short 38% of the time. Put the headline numbers and the method on an open page. 3 See which page AI cites for your numbers. It is often a roundup or a blog that copied you, sometimes with an older figure. That page decides what people hear. See which page AI cites for your numbers. It is often a roundup or a blog that copied you, sometimes with an older figure. That page decides what people hear.