Across 14,728 queries, 42.3% have AI Overviews that fully satisfy user intent. Intent absorption averages 58.8 — and in informational queries, it's 63.3. This is the sub-index where AI doesn't just push you down the page. It removes the need to click entirely.
In Part 1, we showed that the average query in the Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index faces a composite absorption score of 67.7. The SERP is crowded. Organic results are pushed below the fold by AI Overviews, featured snippets, People Also Ask boxes, inline videos, and shopping carousels. Visibility absorption alone sits at 80.0 — a critical score that means the average first organic result is buried under a stack of features before the user even thinks about scrolling1.
But visibility absorption is a real-estate problem. You're still on the page. The user could scroll. The link exists.
Intent absorption is different. It's a relevance problem. When the AI Overview answers the query so completely that the user no longer needs to click, your link doesn't just move down the page. It becomes irrelevant.
This is the sub-index where AI search stops being a ranking challenge and becomes an existential one. And it's the single biggest blind spot in modern keyword research.
In Part 1, we framed the threat as a double hit: a decade of SERP feature crowding, accelerated by AI Overviews. The baseline absorption from non-AI features is 41.6%. The total, with AI, is 67.7%2.
That framing is true but incomplete. Because the composite score bundles together two fundamentally different problems.
Visibility absorption (80.0) measures how much the SERP layout buries organic results. It's about pixels and position. The AI Overview pushes you down. The PAA box pushes you further. The video carousel takes another chunk. By the time the user sees your link, they've scrolled through half a dozen features.
Intent absorption (58.8) measures whether the AI Overview or other features answer the query well enough that the user never needs to scroll at all. It doesn't matter where your link sits if the user is already satisfied.
You can visualise this as a 2×2 matrix:
The two-dimensional threat: visibility absorption vs intent absorption.
The kill zone — high visibility plus high intent — is where organic traffic goes to die. And it's larger than most SEOs realise.
Here's why intent absorption is the endgame. Google doesn't need to eliminate organic results to make them irrelevant. It just needs to answer the question first. Every query where the AI Overview fully satisfies the user is a query where your content, however well-optimised, becomes surplus to requirements. The link is still there. The click is gone.
Intent absorption is assessed in two stages. First, we ask a large language model to evaluate whether the AI Overview and SERP features fully satisfy the user's intent. The response is graded: Yes, Partially, or No. Second, we blend this with the estimated CTR impact to produce a 0–100 sub-index score.
The satisfaction split across all 14,728 queries is stark:
| Intent Satisfied | Queries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Yes — fully satisfied | 6,224 | 42.3% |
| Partially — needs more detail | 6,872 | 46.7% |
| No — incomplete or wrong | 1,632 | 11.1% |
Forty-two per cent of all queries have AI Overviews that fully answer the user's need. Another 46.7% give a summary that leaves the user wanting more. Only 11.1% fail to satisfy at all3.
The AI is good enough, most of the time.
Let's look at what each tier looks like in practice.
Yes — fully absorbed. "How to poach eggs" (desktop): intent satisfied, intent absorption 87.8, estimated CTR 8%. "What is hackrf one" (mobile): intent satisfied, intent absorption 89.0, estimated CTR 5%. "Best fuel injector cleaner" (desktop): intent satisfied, intent absorption 86.2, estimated CTR 12%. These are queries where the AI Overview gives a complete answer — step-by-step instructions, a definition, a product recommendation — and the user has no reason to click through4.
Partially — the opportunity window. "Acana dog food review" (mobile): intent partially satisfied, intent absorption 56.0, estimated CTR 35%. The AI summarises the product, but the user still wants a detailed review, ingredient analysis, or comparison with alternatives. "How to care for snake plants" (mobile): partially satisfied, intent absorption 56.0, estimated CTR 35%. The AI gives general advice, but the user wants depth — specific watering schedules, pest troubleshooting, repotting guidance5.
No — the AI failed. "Xbox series x battery life" (mobile): intent not satisfied, intent absorption 44.2, estimated CTR 12%. The AI gives generic controller battery data but misses the specific Series X context. "How do bees make honey step by step" (mobile): intent not satisfied, intent absorption 32.2, estimated CTR 42%. The AI summary is too shallow for a process that genuinely requires detail6.
The pattern is clear. When the AI gets it right, clicks crater. When it gets it partially right, some traffic survives. When it gets it wrong, users click through — but that only happens 11% of the time.
And the distribution isn't gradual. It's bimodal. Thirty-eight per cent of queries sit in the 80–90 intent absorption bin. Another 46% sit in the 40–60 range. There's almost nothing in the middle. The SERP has split into two classes: either the AI absorbs most intent, or it doesn't7.
Intent absorption is bimodal: most queries sit either around 40-60 or 80-90.
If visibility absorption is the punch, intent absorption is the knockout. And nowhere is the knockout cleaner than in informational queries.
Informational intent absorption: 63.3. Composite absorption: 76.4. Both are in critical territory8.
This isn't an accident. Informational queries — the "how to," "what is," "why does," "when to" questions — are the native language of AI Overviews. Large language models are trained on exactly the kind of explanatory content that publishers have spent decades producing. The better your how-to guide, the clearer your definition, the more thorough your explainer, the better the AI's answer becomes.
The death spiral works like this:
The irony is brutal. The best-performing content — the most helpful, thorough, well-structured material — trains the most complete AI answers. Your reward for excellence is invisibility.
Look at the keyword pattern data. "What is" queries average 86.6 composite absorption. "How to" queries average 81.8. "When and how" averages 94.9. These aren't edge cases. They're the backbone of most content strategies9.
Within the informational category, 49.2% of queries are fully satisfied by the AI Overview. That's the highest share of any intent type. Commercial queries: 39.2%. Transactional: 36.0%. Navigational: 34.8%10.
The AI is eating the top of the funnel first — and it's eating it because publishers taught it how.
Intent satisfaction by category: informational queries are most fully satisfied by AI Overviews.
Commercial queries tell a more complicated story. Composite absorption is 72.1 — high, but slightly below informational. Intent absorption is 58.7 — moderate rather than critical. The user wants a product recommendation, and the AI gives one. But the user still wants to compare, check prices, read reviews, see images, verify availability11.
"Best drawing tablet" (mobile): intent satisfied, intent absorption 86.2, estimated CTR 12%. "Lifelock vs aura" (mobile): intent satisfied, intent absorption 86.2, estimated CTR 12%. The AI gives a recommendation, but a non-trivial share of users still want to see the comparison for themselves. The window is open.
The partially satisfied tier is where the opportunity lives. "Acana dog food review" sits at 56.0 intent absorption with 35% estimated CTR. The AI starts the journey. The user finishes it on a site. This is the commercial query sweet spot — for now.
But the window is narrowing. Google has been systematically improving product comparison in AI Overviews, integrating Shopping Graph data, and expanding visual product displays. In March 2025, Google AI Mode launched as a conversational search experience that keeps users inside Google's ecosystem for longer12. The "best [product]" query type that affiliate sites and review publishers have built entire businesses around is under direct assault.
Consider this: 257 queries in our dataset — 1.74% — hit the worst-case combination of intent absorption above 80 and estimated CTR below 10%. Of those 257 dead queries, 165 are informational. But the remaining 92 span commercial and transactional territory. The kill zone is expanding13.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: the standard content strategy advice — "create better, more comprehensive content" — is no longer sufficient. In many cases, it's actively self-defeating. Better content trains better AI answers. The death spiral continues.
The publishers who see this clearly are already changing course. Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, told his teams to "assume there's no search" and plan their businesses as if search traffic were zero. He called Google's AI Overviews "another sort of death blow" to publisher referrals14. Condé Nast isn't a fringe blog. It's one of the world's largest publishers, with brands from Vogue to Wired to Bon Appétit. When a publisher of that scale writes off search, the rest of the industry should pay attention.
The strategy that emerges isn't about abandoning content. It's about building a three-pillar portfolio that acknowledges reality while still playing the game.
Some queries resist intent absorption because the user explicitly wants a destination. Navigational queries average 48.5 composite absorption — the lowest of any category. "Indeed login" (3.7). "Capital one login" (3.7). "Ziprecruiter login" (3.7). Users searching for a brand's login page aren't looking for an AI summary. They're looking for the login page15.
Transactional queries with brand intent show similar resilience. The user has decided to buy and wants a specific site. The AI can recommend a product, but the user still needs to check out, see shipping options, verify returns policy. Intent absorption here is 53.4 — moderate, not critical.
Defend what you can. Prioritise branded search, navigational queries, and transactional pages where the user's destination intent overrides the AI's answer. These are your defensive moats.
This is where most content strategy debate lives. What can the AI not replicate — yet?
Original research is the obvious answer. The Absorption Index itself is an example: an original dataset of 14,728 queries with custom methodology that an AI Overview can't reproduce without citing us. First-person experience — the "I tested twelve drawing tablets for six weeks" review — carries weight that synthetic summaries don't. Proprietary tools, calculators, configurators, and community-driven content all create value the AI can't easily replace.
But here's the critical caveat: this window may close. Google is already training on reviews, forum discussions, and user-generated content. What qualifies as "unreplicable" today may be routine synthesis by next year. The E-E-A-T framework's emphasis on "experience" is a recognition of this, but it's not a permanent shield16.
Create original, experiential, tool-based content. But don't pretend it's fortress-grade defensible. It's a time-limited advantage, not a permanent one.
This is the insurance policy. If Google fully absorbs your informational content, your commercial roundups, and even your original research citations, what do you still own?
The answer is: your audience. Directly.
Newsletters. Communities. Brand search. Direct traffic. These aren't SEO strategies. They're anti-SEO strategies — channels that don't depend on Google sending you clicks because you've already built the relationship.
The Condé Nast directive to "assume there's no search" is extreme, but the principle is sound. Plan for zero Google clicks while still playing the content game. The content builds authority, earns citations in AI Overviews, and supports brand awareness. But the revenue model — the sustainable traffic — needs to come from somewhere Google can't absorb.
The three-pillar portfolio for the AI search era: defend, create, escape.
A methodological note on our strongest finding. The correlation between intent absorption and estimated CTR in our dataset is −0.93 — an almost perfect inverse relationship17. As intent absorption rises, estimated CTR falls in a near-straight line. But this correlation reflects the internal consistency of our methodology, not independent validation. Both scores are LLM-assessed, and the CTR prompt receives the intent assessment as input. This is a coherent model, not a measured finding. A follow-up study pairing our absorption scoring with actual Search Console CTR data would be valuable.
Everything we've covered so far is aggregate data across 14,728 queries. But absorption doesn't play out evenly across industries. In Part 3, we'll show that cryptocurrency and blockchain queries average 84.8 composite absorption, while furniture and décor averages 52.4. That's a 32-point spread — the difference between critical and moderate18.
If you run a business in a specific vertical, aggregate data tells you the trend. Vertical data tells you your risk.
We run custom Absorption Index analyses for individual sectors. The methodology is the same — 14,728-query rigour applied to your keyword portfolio — but the output is tailored: which query types in your vertical are most at risk from intent absorption, which semantic clusters are uninhabitable, and where your defensive moats are.
If you want us to run the Absorption Index on your vertical, email consulting@wayfinderai.tools.
Part 3 breaks down the sector-level and semantic-cluster analysis. We'll show you which industries face the most severe absorption, which content types are effectively uninhabitable, and how purchase-stage data reshapes content budget allocation.
Here's a preview of what the data reveals:
Sector variance is extreme. Cryptocurrency and blockchain queries average 84.8 composite absorption. Furniture and décor averages 52.4. The sector you operate in matters more than your SEO tactics19.
Semantic clusters tell a clearer story than sectors. "How to" content averages 81.8 composite absorption. "Brand search" averages 44.6. The type of content you produce is a stronger predictor of risk than the industry you're in20.
The funnel is being eaten from the top down. Awareness-stage queries average 76.4 composite. Retention-stage queries average 48.7. Your top-of-funnel content strategy is under direct assault21.
The interactive Absorption Index Browser is live at /resources/tools/absorption-index-browser — explore the full dataset, filter by category, device, sector, and semantic cluster, and see how your keywords stack up.
Visibility absorption is a real-estate problem. Intent absorption is a relevance problem. One pushes your link down the page. The other removes the need to click entirely.
Across 14,728 queries, 42.3% have AI Overviews that fully satisfy user intent. Another 46.7% partially satisfy. The AI is good enough, most of the time — and in informational queries, it's good enough 49.2% of the time. Intent absorption in informational queries sits at 63.3. "How to" content averages 81.8 composite absorption. The death spiral is real: better content trains better AI answers, which means fewer clicks for the publisher that created it.
The response isn't to stop creating content. It's to stop pretending that content alone is a traffic strategy. The three-pillar portfolio — defend what resists absorption, create what the AI can't replicate yet, and build escape routes that don't depend on Google — is how publishers adapt to a world where 42% of queries are already answered before the user sees a link.
The SERP has changed. The AI isn't going back. The only question is whether your strategy evolves with it.
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. 14,728 queries across desktop and mobile, four intent categories. Full methodology available in the research paper. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. AI-only composite: 41.6. Non-AI feature absorption: 26.1. Total composite: 67.7. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Intent satisfaction assessed via LLM evaluation of AI Overview completeness against original query intent. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. "How to poach eggs" (desktop): intent_absorption 87.8, estimated_ctr_percent 8.0, composite 96.34. "What is hackrf one" (mobile): intent_absorption 89.0, estimated_ctr_percent 5.0, composite 96.7. "Best fuel injector cleaner" (desktop): intent_absorption 86.2, estimated_ctr_percent 12.0, composite 95.86. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. "Acana dog food review" (mobile): intent_satisfied "Partially", intent_absorption 56.0, estimated_ctr_percent 35.0, composite 86.8. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. "Xbox series x battery life" (mobile): intent_satisfied "No", intent_absorption 44.2, estimated_ctr_percent 12.0, composite 63.08. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Intent absorption histogram: 80–90 bin contains 5,639 queries (38.3%). 40–50 bin contains 4,189 (28.4%). 50–60 bin contains 2,636 (17.9%). Combined 40–60: 46.3%. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Informational category: intent_absorption 63.3 (mobile 63.61, desktop 62.98), composite 76.4 (mobile 77.28, desktop 75.59). ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Keyword pattern averages: "what is" 86.59 composite, "how to" 81.80 composite, "when and how" 94.90 composite. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Informational: 2,970 of 6,034 queries fully satisfied (49.2%). Commercial: 1,737 of 4,434 (39.2%). Transactional: 1,023 of 2,842 (36.0%). Navigational: 494 of 1,418 (34.8%). ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Commercial category: intent_absorption 58.7 (mobile 58.83, desktop 58.53), composite 72.1 (mobile 73.41, desktop 70.77). ↩
Search Atlas, "Google AI Mode: How It Works, Features, SEO Impact & Access Guide," May 2026. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. 257 queries (1.74%) with intent_absorption > 80 and estimated_ctr_percent < 10. By category: informational 165, commercial 23, transactional 11, navigational 58. ↩
Search Engine Journal, "Condé Nast CEO: Assume There's No Search," May 2026. Financial Times, "Publishers Brace for AI Search Impact," February 2026. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Navigational category: composite 48.5. "Indeed login": 3.66. "Capital one login": 3.66. "Ziprecruiter login": 3.66. ↩
Google Search Central, "Creating Helpful, Reliable, People-First Content," ongoing. E-E-A-T framework emphasises Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Pearson correlation between intent_absorption and estimated_ctr_percent: −0.9309 across all 14,728 queries. By category: informational −0.9498, commercial −0.9356, transactional −0.9167, navigational −0.8719. Both variables are LLM-assessed; correlation reflects methodological consistency. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Sector-level analysis from keyword catalog enrichment (63 sectors, 389 semantic clusters, 14,710 matched records of 14,728). ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Cryptocurrency/blockchain sector: 36 queries, composite 84.79. Furniture/decor sector: 584 queries, composite 52.35. ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Semantic cluster averages: how_to_guide 78.17 composite (1,036 queries), brand_search 44.57 composite (578 queries). ↩
Wayfinder AI Search Absorption Index, June 2026. Purchase stage analysis from keyword catalog enrichment: awareness 76.4 composite (5,922 queries), consideration 72.1 (4,474 queries), decision 52.5 (2,914 queries), retention 48.7 (1,400 queries). ↩
Next in series
Which industries are getting hammered by AI search? The data, sector by sector.
