Smash Meals / Website analysis
The reports, explained.
Four completed analyses of the real website reports, with interactive graphs, source rows, and recommendations you can evaluate.
Source snapshot: November 2, 2026 · Historical data through October 31, except indexing through October 22
Report snapshot
November 2, 2026
What the evidence says
Visibility alone is not the outcome. Search impressions rose slightly while clicks fell; AI-feature visibility increased; and indexing exclusions need investigation. The reports point to useful questions, but they do not establish why these changes happened.
More appearances, fewer visits.
Compare clicks, impressions, and CTR. Explore the daily data and the possible explanations.
Read the report →02 / PAGE INDEXINGWhich excluded pages matter?
Compare the snapshots, inspect the exclusion reasons, and prioritize checks.
Read the report →03 / AI VISIBILITYA larger presence in AI features.
Explore the visibility increase and identify pages worth reviewing.
Read the report →04 / CONTENT OPPORTUNITIESUseful content starts with evidence.
Connect observed searches to existing pages and practical content recommendations.
Read the report →What was actually run
Each report corresponds to a completed wizard. Open “What was run” inside a report to see its exact prompt.
| Analysis | Wizard choices |
|---|---|
| Search performance | Why fewer clicks? → Two recent periods → Explain each solution |
| Page indexing | Explain the change → Earlier and later → Three priorities |
| AI visibility | Compare the signals → Two recent periods → Three priorities |
| Content opportunities | Find useful topics → Gluten-free delivery → Content and SEO brief |
Source: Codex interpreted the four captured prompts using the supplied report snapshots. Python computed the figures. The graphs display those results; no website changes were performed.
Earlier and later are report periods. No website change log or intervention date was supplied. These comparisons do not claim that a particular fix caused a result.
Reports used, date coverage & calculation checks
| Source | Daily rows | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Open search report | 488 | 2025-07-01 to 2026-10-31 |
| Open indexing report | 80 | 2026-08-04 to 2026-10-22 |
| Open AI-feature report | 167 | 2026-05-18 to 2026-10-31 |
- No missing or duplicate dates were found in the supplied daily histories. Each search/AI comparison has 28 days.
- CTR is computed from summed clicks and impressions. The category counts total 3,040 not-indexed pages.
- Query and page exports contain 1,000 rows each. They are not guaranteed complete inventories. Segment tables cover their full report periods.
- Current page copy, example excluded URLs, a website change log, and conversions were not supplied. Missing information remains unverified.
- Source copies were read on November 2, 2026, at about 10:43 p.m. Eastern. These are historical report findings.
Calculation command: python3 native/wizard-runs/analyze_reports.py. Observed exit code: 0. The download package includes the evidence JSON, exact prompts, and calculation source.
01 / Search performance
More visibility.
Fewer clicks.
Search appearances grew slightly, but a smaller share turned into visits. The next question is which searches, pages, or devices explain the decline.
Two equal periods: Sept. 6–Oct. 3 and Oct. 4–31, 2026
Report snapshot
November 2, 2026
Where the change happened
Daily values from the two comparison periods. Switch the metric to examine the same dates.
View all plotted values
| Date | Clicks | Impressions | CTR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-06 | 239 | 16,641 | 1.44% |
| 2026-09-07 | 230 | 17,255 | 1.33% |
| 2026-09-08 | 233 | 16,647 | 1.40% |
| 2026-09-09 | 233 | 13,579 | 1.72% |
| 2026-09-10 | 261 | 14,373 | 1.82% |
| 2026-09-11 | 186 | 13,321 | 1.40% |
| 2026-09-12 | 269 | 13,619 | 1.98% |
| 2026-09-13 | 297 | 15,189 | 1.96% |
| 2026-09-14 | 278 | 14,725 | 1.89% |
| 2026-09-15 | 281 | 17,736 | 1.58% |
| 2026-09-16 | 232 | 25,198 | 0.92% |
| 2026-09-17 | 319 | 21,229 | 1.50% |
| 2026-09-18 | 291 | 18,618 | 1.56% |
| 2026-09-19 | 271 | 13,454 | 2.01% |
| 2026-09-20 | 329 | 15,111 | 2.18% |
| 2026-09-21 | 237 | 14,518 | 1.63% |
| 2026-09-22 | 265 | 14,636 | 1.81% |
| 2026-09-23 | 259 | 15,643 | 1.66% |
| 2026-09-24 | 295 | 20,011 | 1.47% |
| 2026-09-25 | 242 | 18,921 | 1.28% |
| 2026-09-26 | 217 | 19,261 | 1.13% |
| 2026-09-27 | 317 | 20,375 | 1.56% |
| 2026-09-28 | 286 | 19,311 | 1.48% |
| 2026-09-29 | 278 | 18,297 | 1.52% |
| 2026-09-30 | 259 | 19,776 | 1.31% |
| 2026-10-01 | 294 | 16,447 | 1.79% |
| 2026-10-02 | 221 | 15,430 | 1.43% |
| 2026-10-03 | 250 | 16,203 | 1.54% |
| 2026-10-04 | 296 | 17,056 | 1.74% |
| 2026-10-05 | 278 | 17,549 | 1.58% |
| 2026-10-06 | 259 | 17,142 | 1.51% |
| 2026-10-07 | 204 | 16,546 | 1.23% |
| 2026-10-08 | 212 | 15,036 | 1.41% |
| 2026-10-09 | 192 | 13,863 | 1.38% |
| 2026-10-10 | 195 | 13,613 | 1.43% |
| 2026-10-11 | 233 | 14,994 | 1.55% |
| 2026-10-12 | 201 | 14,037 | 1.43% |
| 2026-10-13 | 266 | 14,540 | 1.83% |
| 2026-10-14 | 212 | 14,091 | 1.50% |
| 2026-10-15 | 260 | 15,423 | 1.69% |
| 2026-10-16 | 212 | 13,263 | 1.60% |
| 2026-10-17 | 174 | 13,806 | 1.26% |
| 2026-10-18 | 246 | 16,143 | 1.52% |
| 2026-10-19 | 245 | 16,530 | 1.48% |
| 2026-10-20 | 253 | 17,837 | 1.42% |
| 2026-10-21 | 261 | 17,313 | 1.51% |
| 2026-10-22 | 265 | 16,845 | 1.57% |
| 2026-10-23 | 220 | 15,731 | 1.40% |
| 2026-10-24 | 211 | 14,842 | 1.42% |
| 2026-10-25 | 317 | 17,813 | 1.78% |
| 2026-10-26 | 312 | 19,621 | 1.59% |
| 2026-10-27 | 252 | 20,732 | 1.22% |
| 2026-10-28 | 301 | 26,634 | 1.13% |
| 2026-10-29 | 293 | 25,295 | 1.16% |
| 2026-10-30 | 259 | 22,780 | 1.14% |
| 2026-10-31 | 220 | 20,994 | 1.05% |
Reading the result
Visibility is only part of the story.
A search impression means the site appeared in a result. A click means someone chose it.
There were 4,545 more appearances, yet 520 fewer clicks. The lower overall click-through rate accounts for that numerical difference.
The cause is still unknown. A different mix of queries, rankings, devices, or search results could explain the change. The supplied segment tables do not compare these two periods.
The graph shows daily values. The headline CTR is calculated from period totals.
What to recommend
Recommendations for the business to consider. Students analyze and explain; they do not change the site.
Find the segment behind the decline
Ask for the same two periods broken down by query, page, and device. Separate brand searches from general searches before deciding what needs improvement.
- Evidence
- Clicks −7.1%; impressions +1.0%.
- Check first
- Period-specific segment exports; the current tables cover the whole report.
- Measure later
- Clicks, impressions, CTR, and position for the affected segment.
Review the gluten-free delivery search result
Identify the landing page and check whether its title and description clearly answer the delivery question. Propose wording changes only after seeing the current result.
- Evidence
- “gluten free meal delivery”: 18,249 impressions, 326 clicks. Queries row 6
- Check first
- Current search result, page copy, and query-to-page data.
- Measure later
- Relevant query/page clicks and CTR, with position kept in view.
Check device differences before blaming content
Compare mobile and desktop within each period. The full-history difference is a reason to investigate, not proof of a recent device problem.
- Evidence
- Full-history CTR: mobile 2.72%; desktop 1.28%. Devices rows 2–3
- Check first
- The two-period device breakdown and its query mix.
- Measure later
- Device-specific clicks and CTR for comparable queries.
What was run: choices, exact prompt & method
This analysis follows the choices below. Codex analyzed the supplied report snapshots; Python recalculated the metrics. The HTML presents those completed findings. No separate ChatGPT/API run or website change was made.
Question: What could explain fewer clicks when search impressions increased?
Analyze the supplied Smash Meals website reports. My question: What could explain fewer clicks when search impressions increased? Focus and comparison: Compare September 6–October 3, 2026 with October 4–31, 2026. Each period has 28 days. Source reports: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_yz2qczhpLsWkSZ689fV3xyy9U1dUyQJ7OZT44oXad4/edit Relevant tabs: Chart, Queries, Pages, Devices, Countries and Filters. Use the daily Chart rows for period comparisons. Sum clicks and impressions; calculate CTR as summed clicks divided by summed impressions, never the average of daily CTRs. Show earlier, later, absolute change and percentage change. Express a CTR difference in percentage points. Use the full-period Queries, Pages and Devices tabs to identify investigation targets, not to claim which page caused a recent change. Do not invent page-by-date or query-to-page relationships. Consider search intent and whether the visible result answers the reader's need. No website change log or conversion data was supplied, so do not claim a particular edit caused an outcome or that clicks prove sales. Recommendations: Recommend practical solutions in plain language. For each, explain the finding, why the proposed solution fits, the missing evidence, and what the business should check next. Return a clear analysis with: (1) the question and source scope, (2) the evidence and any supported before/after comparison, (3) findings and possible explanations clearly separated, and (4) the recommended next steps with supporting evidence and what remains unknown. Use the actual supplied reports. First identify the tabs and date coverage you can read. If you cannot access a report, ask me to attach it and do not invent its contents. Cite the report, tab, and row or range for every finding. Separate observed facts from possible explanations. Use plain language for a student learning website analysis. Produce the analysis now, including recommendations; do not stop at a plan for doing the analysis. Recommend only. Do not edit the website, publish content, or change any settings.
Arithmetic: python3 native/wizard-runs/analyze_reports.py. Observed exit code 0. Each comparison contains 28 daily rows. All three daily histories have no missing or duplicate dates. CTR = total clicks ÷ total impressions.
Full analysis with source rows and limitations
What I ran: Why fewer clicks? → Two recent periods → Explain each solution. Exact prompt is included in “What was run” above.
Answer: The site appeared in search slightly more often, but a smaller proportion of those appearances produced a click. That explains the numerical decline; the reports do not establish its underlying cause.
| Measure | Sept. 6–Oct. 3, 2026 | Oct. 4–31, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Search clicks | 7,369 | 6,849 | −520 (−7.06%) |
| Search impressions | 475,524 | 480,069 | +4,545 (+0.96%) |
| Click-through rate | 1.550% | 1.427% | −0.123 percentage points |
Each period has 28 daily observations. CTR is total clicks ÷ total impressions, not an average of daily percentages. Evidence: Search Chart, earlier rows 434–461, later rows 462–489.
Possible explanations: More impressions from searches with weaker purchase intent; a change in rankings or displayed search results; or a different mix of devices and queries. These are hypotheses. The supplied query, page, and device tables cover the whole export period, so they cannot identify which segment caused the recent decline.
Recommended solutions to investigate:
| Priority | Evidence | Proposed next step and why | Missing evidence / future measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Locate the decline | Aggregate clicks fell while impressions grew. | Compare the same two periods by query, page, and device, separating brand searches from general searches. This identifies where a proposed solution belongs. | Period-specific segment exports; measure each segment's clicks, impressions, and CTR. |
| 2. Review the gluten-free search result | “gluten free meal delivery” has 326 clicks from 18,249 impressions, CTR 1.79%, average position 6.86. Queries row 6. | Identify its landing page, inspect the displayed result and page, and propose clearer wording if it does not answer the delivery question. | Query-to-page data and current title/copy are absent. Track query/page clicks and CTR alongside position after any future change. |
| 3. Check device differences | Full-period mobile CTR is 2.72%; desktop is 1.28%. Devices rows 2–3. | Compare each device across the two periods before attributing the aggregate change to content. Different device mixes could change the overall rate. | Device data for each period; monitor device-level CTR while accounting for query and position differences. |
Google advises descriptive, concise title text because title links help readers judge relevance. That supports reviewing a result's wording; it does not establish that Smash Meals currently has a title problem. Google title-link guidance.
02 / Page indexing
More excluded pages.
Check their purpose first.
The report contains fewer indexed pages and many more excluded pages. The largest category is noindex, which may include intentional exclusions.
Snapshots compared: August 4 and October 22, 2026
Report snapshot
November 2, 2026
The site’s known page count grew.
Both bars use the same scale, starting at zero.
Total known pages increased by 1,519. The rise in exclusions does not mean 1,723 previously indexed pages disappeared.
Source: August 4: Chart row 2 · October 22: row 81
What the exclusions contain
Latest reported category counts. Category size is not the same as severity.
Source: Critical issues rows 2–11
What to recommend
Recommendations for the business to consider. Students analyze and explain; they do not change the site.
Verify the noindex exclusions
Request example URLs and sort them by purpose. Recommend correcting unintended noindex rules on valuable public pages; keep exclusions that serve a deliberate purpose.
- Evidence
- 2,271 pages are excluded by noindex. Issue row 2
- Check first
- Example URLs, business intent, current tags or headers.
- Measure later
- Intended public pages becoming indexable; keep intentional exclusions.
Investigate the soft 404s
Check the response and rendered content of important examples. Propose restoring useful content, using a genuine missing-page response, or a relevant replacement according to the intended page.
- Evidence
- 128 soft 404s. Issue row 4
- Check first
- Actual URL responses and rendered content are not in the export.
- Measure later
- Unresolved valuable pages and the status of inspected examples.
Review valuable crawled and discovered pages
Inspect useful examples for duplication, internal links, content, and canonical intent before proposing page-level changes.
- Evidence
- 162 crawled and 150 discovered pages remain unindexed. Issue rows 7–11
- Check first
- URL examples and current page evidence; a “Passed” label does not erase the 150 count.
- Measure later
- Inspection status and future search impressions for intended pages.
Indexing history
Explore the daily counts between the two snapshots.
View all plotted values
| Date | Indexed pages | Not-indexed pages |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-04 | 1,964 | 1,317 |
| 2026-08-05 | 1,971 | 1,319 |
| 2026-08-06 | 1,971 | 1,319 |
| 2026-08-07 | 1,974 | 1,317 |
| 2026-08-08 | 1,974 | 1,317 |
| 2026-08-09 | 1,974 | 1,317 |
| 2026-08-10 | 2,001 | 1,348 |
| 2026-08-11 | 2,001 | 1,348 |
| 2026-08-12 | 2,001 | 1,348 |
| 2026-08-13 | 2,001 | 1,348 |
| 2026-08-14 | 2,027 | 1,377 |
| 2026-08-15 | 2,027 | 1,377 |
| 2026-08-16 | 2,027 | 1,377 |
| 2026-08-17 | 2,036 | 1,466 |
| 2026-08-18 | 2,036 | 1,466 |
| 2026-08-19 | 2,036 | 1,466 |
| 2026-08-20 | 2,036 | 1,466 |
| 2026-08-21 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-22 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-23 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-24 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-25 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-26 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-27 | 2,183 | 2,211 |
| 2026-08-28 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-08-29 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-08-30 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-08-31 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-09-01 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-09-02 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-09-03 | 2,195 | 1,612 |
| 2026-09-04 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-05 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-06 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-07 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-08 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-09 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-10 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-11 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-12 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-13 | 2,195 | 1,709 |
| 2026-09-14 | 2,222 | 2,295 |
| 2026-09-15 | 2,222 | 2,295 |
| 2026-09-16 | 2,222 | 2,295 |
| 2026-09-17 | 2,222 | 2,295 |
| 2026-09-18 | 2,189 | 2,017 |
| 2026-09-19 | 2,189 | 2,017 |
| 2026-09-20 | 2,189 | 2,017 |
| 2026-09-21 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-22 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-23 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-24 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-25 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-26 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-27 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-28 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-29 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-09-30 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-10-01 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-10-02 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-10-03 | 1,854 | 2,616 |
| 2026-10-04 | 1,684 | 2,815 |
| 2026-10-05 | 1,684 | 2,815 |
| 2026-10-06 | 1,684 | 2,815 |
| 2026-10-07 | 1,684 | 2,815 |
| 2026-10-08 | 1,684 | 2,815 |
| 2026-10-09 | 1,715 | 2,871 |
| 2026-10-10 | 1,715 | 2,871 |
| 2026-10-11 | 1,715 | 2,871 |
| 2026-10-12 | 1,726 | 2,958 |
| 2026-10-13 | 1,726 | 2,958 |
| 2026-10-14 | 1,726 | 2,958 |
| 2026-10-15 | 1,726 | 2,958 |
| 2026-10-16 | 1,771 | 2,948 |
| 2026-10-17 | 1,771 | 2,948 |
| 2026-10-18 | 1,771 | 2,948 |
| 2026-10-19 | 1,760 | 3,040 |
| 2026-10-20 | 1,760 | 3,040 |
| 2026-10-21 | 1,760 | 3,040 |
| 2026-10-22 | 1,760 | 3,040 |
Source: August 4: Chart row 2 · October 22: row 81
What was run: choices, exact prompt & method
This analysis follows the choices below. Codex analyzed the supplied report snapshots; Python recalculated the metrics. The HTML presents those completed findings. No separate ChatGPT/API run or website change was made.
Question: How did indexed and not-indexed page counts change, and what should we check before drawing conclusions?
Analyze the supplied Smash Meals website reports. My question: How did indexed and not-indexed page counts change, and what should we check before drawing conclusions? Focus and comparison: Compare the August 4, 2026 and October 22, 2026 snapshots, then review the latest Critical issues counts. Source reports: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fRQfoHp3snoGP3ISd75HWsoMSaqZN-UUxkmtAIqAHRU/edit Relevant tabs: Chart, Critical issues, Non-critical issues and Metadata. Distinguish the number of indexed pages from search impressions. Explain the stated reasons and their counts. Do not treat the Critical issues sheet title as proof that every exclusion is harmful. Do not recommend removing all noindex tags, eliminating every redirect, or forcing every page into the index. Prioritize valuable pages with unintended exclusions after confirming URL intent. The export gives category totals rather than example URLs, response codes, current page content or Google-selected canonical details. State which checks would be needed for each proposed solution. A validation label alone does not prove a category has zero affected pages. Recommendations: Recommend three priorities. For each, explain the evidence, the proposed solution, the benefit, what still needs checking, and how the business could measure the result. Return a clear analysis with: (1) the question and source scope, (2) the evidence and any supported before/after comparison, (3) findings and possible explanations clearly separated, and (4) the recommended next steps with supporting evidence and what remains unknown. Use the actual supplied reports. First identify the tabs and date coverage you can read. If you cannot access a report, ask me to attach it and do not invent its contents. Cite the report, tab, and row or range for every finding. Separate observed facts from possible explanations. Use plain language for a student learning website analysis. Produce the analysis now, including recommendations; do not stop at a plan for doing the analysis. Recommend only. Do not edit the website, publish content, or change any settings.
Arithmetic: python3 native/wizard-runs/analyze_reports.py. Observed exit code 0. Each comparison contains 28 daily rows. All three daily histories have no missing or duplicate dates. CTR = total clicks ÷ total impressions.
Full analysis with source rows and limitations
What I ran: Explain the change → Earlier and later → Three priorities. Exact prompt is included in “What was run” above.
Answer: Indexed pages decreased by 204 while not-indexed pages increased by 1,723. The total number of known pages also grew, so this is not evidence that 1,723 previously indexed pages disappeared.
| Measure | Aug. 4, 2026 | Oct. 22, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indexed pages | 1,964 | 1,760 | −204 |
| Not-indexed pages | 1,317 | 3,040 | +1,723 |
| Total known pages | 3,281 | 4,800 | +1,519 |
Evidence: Coverage Chart row 2, row 81. Total known pages is indexed plus not indexed. These snapshots do not track the same fixed set of URLs.
The latest reason counts are:
| Reported reason | Pages |
|---|---|
| Excluded by noindex | 2,271 |
| Page with redirect | 295 |
| Crawled, currently not indexed | 162 |
| Discovered, currently not indexed | 150 |
| Soft 404 | 128 |
| Duplicate without user-selected canonical | 21 |
| Alternate page with proper canonical | 12 |
| Google chose a different canonical | 1 |
| Redirect errors / server errors | 0 / 0 |
These sum to 3,040. The 150 discovered-but-not-indexed pages remain listed despite their “Passed” validation label. Evidence: Critical issues rows 2–11.
Three recommended priorities:
- Check whether the 2,271 noindex exclusions are intentional. Get example URLs and group them by page purpose. If valuable public pages are unintentionally excluded, propose correcting those specific rules. Preserve intentional exclusions. The potential benefit is making intended public content eligible for indexing; measure the affected valuable URLs, not a goal of indexing every URL. Google documents noindex as an explicit indexing exclusion. Report row 2; Google noindex guidance.
- Inspect the 128 soft 404s. For valuable pages, check the actual response and rendered content before recommending repairs. For genuinely removed pages, recommend the appropriate missing-page response or a relevant replacement where one exists. This addresses the page's intended purpose instead of treating every exclusion alike. Track sampled URLs and unresolved valuable pages. The export contains neither URL examples nor current responses. Report row 4; Google response-status guidance.
- Review valuable pages among the 162 crawled and 150 discovered exclusions. Request URL examples; check intended canonical URLs, internal links, duplication, and usefulness before recommending page-level changes. The potential benefit is improving access to useful content, not forcing low-value URLs into search. Track the intended pages' inspection status and future impressions. The category counts cannot prove the cause. Report rows 7–11.
Redirects and alternate canonical pages may be expected. These totals alone do not justify removing all redirects or canonicals. There is no earlier issue-category breakdown here to show which reason drove the increase.
03 / AI visibility
AI visibility grew.
Business impact is still unmeasured.
The site appeared more often in AI features during the later period. That is a visibility gain; the export does not include AI clicks, orders, or revenue.
Two equal periods: Sept. 6–Oct. 3 and Oct. 4–31, 2026
Report snapshot
November 2, 2026
AI-feature impressions over time
Daily impressions. The later period is highlighted in orange.
View all plotted values
| Date | AI-feature impressions |
|---|---|
| 2026-09-06 | 2,664 |
| 2026-09-07 | 2,541 |
| 2026-09-08 | 2,705 |
| 2026-09-09 | 2,206 |
| 2026-09-10 | 2,132 |
| 2026-09-11 | 2,344 |
| 2026-09-12 | 2,427 |
| 2026-09-13 | 2,673 |
| 2026-09-14 | 2,895 |
| 2026-09-15 | 2,688 |
| 2026-09-16 | 3,001 |
| 2026-09-17 | 2,726 |
| 2026-09-18 | 2,938 |
| 2026-09-19 | 2,658 |
| 2026-09-20 | 3,165 |
| 2026-09-21 | 2,847 |
| 2026-09-22 | 2,912 |
| 2026-09-23 | 2,901 |
| 2026-09-24 | 2,966 |
| 2026-09-25 | 3,257 |
| 2026-09-26 | 2,553 |
| 2026-09-27 | 2,710 |
| 2026-09-28 | 3,189 |
| 2026-09-29 | 2,807 |
| 2026-09-30 | 2,686 |
| 2026-10-01 | 2,601 |
| 2026-10-02 | 2,222 |
| 2026-10-03 | 2,286 |
| 2026-10-04 | 2,499 |
| 2026-10-05 | 2,911 |
| 2026-10-06 | 2,923 |
| 2026-10-07 | 2,742 |
| 2026-10-08 | 2,418 |
| 2026-10-09 | 2,336 |
| 2026-10-10 | 1,878 |
| 2026-10-11 | 2,182 |
| 2026-10-12 | 2,464 |
| 2026-10-13 | 2,568 |
| 2026-10-14 | 2,390 |
| 2026-10-15 | 2,591 |
| 2026-10-16 | 2,223 |
| 2026-10-17 | 1,886 |
| 2026-10-18 | 2,299 |
| 2026-10-19 | 2,965 |
| 2026-10-20 | 2,907 |
| 2026-10-21 | 2,997 |
| 2026-10-22 | 3,126 |
| 2026-10-23 | 2,565 |
| 2026-10-24 | 2,195 |
| 2026-10-25 | 2,904 |
| 2026-10-26 | 3,399 |
| 2026-10-27 | 4,824 |
| 2026-10-28 | 7,329 |
| 2026-10-29 | 8,298 |
| 2026-10-30 | 7,685 |
| 2026-10-31 | 6,247 |
Pages worth a closer look
Full AI report: May 18–Oct. 31, 2026. These are not the pages’ recent growth rates.
Source: AI Pages rows 2–6
Two observations, no proven causal link
AI-feature impressions rose 23.8% while search clicks fell 7.1%. The reports do not show that one caused the other. AI-feature impressions should not be added to overall search impressions.
What to recommend
Recommendations for the business to consider. Students analyze and explain; they do not change the site.
Review content already receiving visibility
Start with the brisket and celiac pages. Check whether they answer the reader’s question clearly and support their factual claims before expanding similar content.
- Evidence
- 37,631 and 21,833 full-period AI impressions. AI Pages rows 2–3
- Check first
- Current page content; URL names alone do not establish quality.
- Measure later
- Page-level AI impressions across comparable periods.
Compare the same pages across the same dates
Request a page-level AI comparison and search comparison for both 28-day periods. This can identify which pages warrant investigation.
- Evidence
- Aggregate AI visibility increased while aggregate search clicks fell.
- Check first
- Per-period page exports; current page totals cover the entire report.
- Measure later
- Page-level visibility and clicks, with causality kept separate.
Ask whether visibility helps the business
Request landing-page engagement and order information before reporting commercial success. Attribution to AI features may still be unavailable.
- Evidence
- The AI export contains impressions only.
- Check first
- Available analytics, conversion data, and attribution limits.
- Measure later
- Useful visits or orders, where reliably measured.
What was run: choices, exact prompt & method
This analysis follows the choices below. Codex analyzed the supplied report snapshots; Python recalculated the metrics. The HTML presents those completed findings. No separate ChatGPT/API run or website change was made.
Question: What do AI-feature visibility and overall search performance tell us when we consider them together?
Analyze the supplied Smash Meals website reports. My question: What do AI-feature visibility and overall search performance tell us when we consider them together? Focus and comparison: Compare September 6–October 3, 2026 with October 4–31, 2026. Each period has 28 days. Source reports: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bZlIQBizt2RR4xrTiw4TX_qze5c70Tb78APuGBDOZEA/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_yz2qczhpLsWkSZ689fV3xyy9U1dUyQJ7OZT44oXad4/edit Relevant tabs: AI report: Chart, Pages, Countries, Devices and Filters. Search report: Chart for context.. This AI-feature export measures impressions only. Sum daily impressions for the requested periods and show earlier, later and percentage change. Do not invent AI clicks, CTR, conversions or sales. Do not add AI-feature impressions to total search impressions. The AI history begins May 18 even though Filters says Last 16 months; do not treat earlier missing dates as zeros. The Pages table covers the full report period, so use it for investigation targets rather than per-period growth claims. Identify which content topics and customer questions may merit review, but do not infer page quality solely from the URL. Recommend helpful content and source checks rather than promising AI rankings. Do not claim that AI-feature growth caused a search-click decline. Recommendations: Recommend three priorities. For each, explain the evidence, the proposed solution, the benefit, what still needs checking, and how the business could measure the result. Return a clear analysis with: (1) the question and source scope, (2) the evidence and any supported before/after comparison, (3) findings and possible explanations clearly separated, and (4) the recommended next steps with supporting evidence and what remains unknown. Use the actual supplied reports. First identify the tabs and date coverage you can read. If you cannot access a report, ask me to attach it and do not invent its contents. Cite the report, tab, and row or range for every finding. Separate observed facts from possible explanations. Use plain language for a student learning website analysis. Produce the analysis now, including recommendations; do not stop at a plan for doing the analysis. Recommend only. Do not edit the website, publish content, or change any settings.
Arithmetic: python3 native/wizard-runs/analyze_reports.py. Observed exit code 0. Each comparison contains 28 daily rows. All three daily histories have no missing or duplicate dates. CTR = total clicks ÷ total impressions.
Full analysis with source rows and limitations
What I ran: Compare the signals → Two recent periods → Three priorities. Exact prompt is included in “What was run” above.
Answer: AI-feature visibility increased while search clicks declined. Both observations are supported; a causal connection between them is not.
| Measure | Sept. 6–Oct. 3, 2026 | Oct. 4–31, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI-feature impressions | 75,700 | 93,751 | +18,051 (+23.85%) |
| Overall search clicks | 7,369 | 6,849 | −7.06% |
Evidence: AI Chart rows 113–140, rows 141–168, and the search ranges above. The AI report provides impressions only. It does not establish AI clicks, conversions, or sales, and its impressions should not be added to overall search impressions.
The full-period AI Pages table identifies review candidates: the brisket nutrition article has 37,631 impressions, the celiac-safe delivery page 21,833, and the GLP-1 shot-day meals resource 14,893. These are full-period totals, not proof that these pages drove the recent increase. AI Pages rows 2–4.
Three recommended priorities:
- Review the visible pages before expanding content. Inspect the brisket and celiac pages for clear answers and verifiable supporting information. The observed visibility makes them useful review candidates; URL names do not prove content quality. Measure their future AI impressions, with period-specific page exports if available.
- Build a page-level comparison for the same two periods. Determine which pages gained AI visibility and whether their ordinary search clicks changed. This could support a more focused explanation. The present aggregate reports cannot do that comparison or prove causality.
- Connect visibility to the business outcome before claiming success. Request available landing-page engagement and order data. Those data would help judge whether the visible content supports useful visits or orders, although direct AI attribution may remain unavailable. No sales increase is demonstrated by these files.
04 / Content opportunities
Start with the pages
that already exist.
The reports show interest in gluten-free delivery and comparisons. Review the existing answers before proposing another article on the same subject.
Query and search-page data: July 1, 2025–Oct. 31, 2026. AI-page data: May 18–Oct. 31, 2026.
Report snapshot
November 2, 2026
What people searched for
Site impressions for three selected non-brand queries. These are not market-wide search volumes.
Source: Queries row 6 · row 47 · row 512
The site already has relevant pages.
Search performance of existing pages, listed separately from the queries.
| Existing page | Clicks | Impressions |
|---|---|---|
| Gluten-free meal delivery | 172 | 7,930 |
| Celiac-safe meal delivery | 1,493 | 70,293 |
| Best gluten-free meal delivery | 38 | 3,999 |
Source: Pages row 29 · row 8 · row 102
The query and page tables are separate aggregates. They do not prove which query led to which page.
A defensible content recommendation
Use the evidence to choose pages to review and questions to answer. The current page copy is missing, so these are proposed directions, not confirmed content gaps or finished rewrites.
What to recommend
Recommendations for the business to consider. Students analyze and explain; they do not change the site.
Make the delivery answer easy to evaluate
Review /gluten-free-meal-delivery for clear delivery areas, ordering steps, meal choices, and verified prices. Add or clarify answers only where they are missing.
- Evidence
- 18,249 impressions for “gluten free meal delivery”; the existing page separately has 7,930 impressions.
- Check first
- Current copy, actual service details, and the query-to-page relationship.
- Measure later
- Relevant query/page clicks and CTR; order completion if later supplied.
Support the celiac page with verified business facts
Review /celiac-safe-meal-delivery for documented preparation, ingredients, and cross-contact practices. Request evidence before suggesting any safety wording.
- Evidence
- 70,293 search impressions and 21,833 AI impressions, measured over different full-report periods.
- Check first
- Current text and documented practices. The URL does not prove medical suitability.
- Measure later
- Page search performance and useful customer actions, when available.
Review comparison pages before adding another
Inventory the existing “best” page and the two listed Factor-comparison URLs. Consider a useful comparison-criteria section on an appropriate existing page before creating another article.
- Evidence
- 2,626 impressions for “best gluten free meal delivery”; existing best page has 3,999 impressions.
- Check first
- Read the pages before calling them duplicates; verify comparison facts.
- Measure later
- The selected page’s relevant queries, clicks, and customer actions.
From observation to a useful recommendation
| What the report shows | What to recommend | What would confirm the idea |
|---|---|---|
| Searches mention delivery. | Review the existing delivery page for clear service information. | Current page copy and verified delivery details. |
| A celiac page receives search and AI impressions. | Review the quality of its explanations and supporting evidence. | Documented business practices and the existing wording. |
| Comparison queries and comparison URLs already exist. | Check overlap before proposing a new comparison article. | A content inventory and page review. |
What was run: choices, exact prompt & method
This analysis follows the choices below. Codex analyzed the supplied report snapshots; Python recalculated the metrics. The HTML presents those completed findings. No separate ChatGPT/API run or website change was made.
Question: Which customer questions in the reports could support useful new content without duplicating existing pages?
Analyze the supplied Smash Meals website reports. My question: Which customer questions in the reports could support useful new content without duplicating existing pages? Focus and comparison: Start with the gluten-free meal delivery query and the celiac-safe-meal-delivery page as separate investigation targets. Source reports: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_yz2qczhpLsWkSZ689fV3xyy9U1dUyQJ7OZT44oXad4/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bZlIQBizt2RR4xrTiw4TX_qze5c70Tb78APuGBDOZEA/edit Relevant tabs: Search: Queries, Pages and Filters. AI features: Pages and Filters.. Connect each observed query or page to a likely reader question and useful outcome. Treat intent as an interpretation, not a verified customer statement or measured keyword volume. Separate branded and non-branded search where supported. Evaluate whether to review an existing page before proposing a new article, and avoid near-duplicate topics. The Queries and Pages tables are separate aggregates, not a query-to-page join. They cover the whole report period and cannot show a page's before/after change. Do not invent current titles, page copy, medical assurances or conversion performance. For each recommendation show the observed evidence, the proposed content direction, and what page copy or additional data must be reviewed. If asked for a content before/after, label the proposed version as a recommendation and do not fabricate an original page or achieved result. Recommendations: Create a short evidence-led content and SEO brief with priority, affected page or topic, reader need, proposed action, supporting report rows, and a future measurement. Return a clear analysis with: (1) the question and source scope, (2) the evidence and any supported before/after comparison, (3) findings and possible explanations clearly separated, and (4) the recommended next steps with supporting evidence and what remains unknown. Use the actual supplied reports. First identify the tabs and date coverage you can read. If you cannot access a report, ask me to attach it and do not invent its contents. Cite the report, tab, and row or range for every finding. Separate observed facts from possible explanations. Use plain language for a student learning website analysis. Produce the analysis now, including recommendations; do not stop at a plan for doing the analysis. Recommend only. Do not edit the website, publish content, or change any settings.
Arithmetic: python3 native/wizard-runs/analyze_reports.py. Observed exit code 0. Each comparison contains 28 daily rows. All three daily histories have no missing or duplicate dates. CTR = total clicks ÷ total impressions.
Full analysis with source rows and limitations
What I ran: Find useful topics → Gluten-free delivery → Content and SEO brief. Exact prompt is included in “What was run” above.
Answer: The clearest opportunity is to review existing gluten-free delivery and comparison pages. The data do not yet justify creating another article covering the same topic.
| Observed search | Clicks | Impressions | CTR | Likely reader need, interpreted from the query |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gluten free meal delivery | 326 | 18,249 | 1.79% | Find a suitable delivery service. |
| gluten free meals delivered | 25 | 8,198 | 0.30% | Understand available meals and delivery. |
| best gluten free meal delivery | 2 | 2,626 | 0.08% | Compare services using relevant criteria. |
Evidence: Queries row 6, row 47, row 512. These are non-brand queries and site impressions, not market-wide keyword volumes. For contrast, the brand query “smash meals” has 6,375 clicks from 9,762 impressions, CTR 65.30%; its different intent makes it an unsuitable CTR target for general searches. Queries row 2.
Proposed content and SEO brief:
| Priority / existing page | Proposed content direction | Supporting evidence | What must be reviewed / future measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. /gluten-free-meal-delivery | Review whether the page clearly explains delivery areas, how ordering works, available meal choices, and verified pricing. Add or clarify answers only where missing. | General delivery queries above; this page separately records 172 clicks and 7,930 impressions. Pages row 29. | Current page copy, actual service details, and query-to-page data. Measure matching query/page clicks and CTR; order completion if supplied later. |
| 2. /celiac-safe-meal-delivery | Review how the page explains its verified preparation, ingredient, and cross-contact practices. Request supporting business facts before proposing any safety wording. | 1,493 search clicks and 70,293 impressions; separately 21,833 AI impressions. Search Pages row 8, AI Pages row 3. | Current text and documented practices. The URL is not evidence of medical suitability. Measure page search performance and useful customer actions if available. |
| 3. Existing comparison content | Review existing “best” and comparison pages for overlap. Consider a useful comparison-criteria section on an appropriate existing page before proposing a new article. | “best gluten free meal delivery” has 2,626 impressions. /best-gluten-free-meal-delivery already records 38 clicks and 3,999 impressions. Two separately listed Factor-comparison URLs also exist. Pages row 102, row 54, row 57. | Read the pages before concluding they duplicate each other. Verify any comparison facts. Measure the selected page's relevant queries, clicks, and customer actions. |
Queries and pages are separate aggregates: the report does not prove that a listed query led to a listed page. Their topics provide investigation targets. No current page text or per-period page data was supplied, so there is no verified original-versus-rewritten content comparison or achieved content improvement to show.