"Your Numbers Don't Match Ours"
Client's in-house team ran their own analysis. It disagrees with yours. Your methodology is on trial.
"We had our intern run our own AI visibility check last month. Their numbers are nearly 20 points higher than what you're reporting. Either your methodology is wrong, or you're under-reporting to keep us paying you."The line that opens this conversation
Applies when · a renewal, QBR, or budget conversation puts the same line — or a near cousin — in front of you. Substitute your client name, ARR, and tenure mentally; the move stays the same.
Patterns drawn from real conversations. Names, numbers, and details are stripped. These are situations to work from.
Client's in-house growth lead opens the QBR: "We had our intern run our own AI visibility check last month. Their numbers are nearly 20 points higher than what you're reporting. Either your methodology is wrong, or you're under-reporting to keep us paying you."
Their intern sampled a handful of prompts manually on a logged-in browser
Your reporting tracks a large prompt set multiple times daily on clean sessions
Their higher number reflects personalization bias rather than real visibility
How you pitch
3 minutes to defend methodology without making the growth lead - or their intern - feel dumb. They commissioned the comparison; saying it's wrong is personal.
What makes it exciting
Ego is in the room. You need to be right without making them wrong. Diplomatic precision required, and the accusation about under-reporting needs neutralising fast.