Overall AI Visibility Holds at 10.0 as the Underlying Landscape Shifts Again
Eight weeks into the CiteCompass NZ Election 2026 AI Visibility Monitor, the overall level of measured political-party AI visibility has remained unchanged.
The average AI Visibility Score across the 30 monitored party-policy profiles was 10.0/100 in Week 8, exactly the same as Week 7.
But the unchanged headline number masks substantial movement underneath.
Across the 30 profiles, 12 increased, 12 decreased and six were unchanged. Together, those movements represented 106 points of absolute week-on-week change — compared with 77 points in Week 7 — while the net change across the complete dataset was zero.
The policy domains also moved in different directions.
Health increased to 19.0, its highest average across the eight weeks of the study. Cost of Living also increased, while Economy, Jobs & Growth and Crime & Public Safety declined. Housing remained close to zero.
The Week 8 picture reinforces a pattern becoming increasingly visible through the longitudinal study:
A stable overall AI Visibility Score does not mean the underlying AI information environment is stable. Visibility continues to redistribute materially between parties and policy domains.
Week 8 reporting period: 5–12 October 2026 UTC.
AI Visibility Scores are CiteCompass research metrics measured on a 0–100 scale within the defined research framework. They measure observed visibility within generative AI research activity. They do not measure policy quality, electoral support or voter preference.
Visit the Interactive Data Report here
Week 8 at a Glance
| Measure | Week 8 |
|---|---|
| Average AI Visibility Score | 10.0 / 100 |
| Week 7 average | 10.0 |
| Week 1 baseline | 9.9 |
| Profiles below 20 | 25 / 30 — 83% |
| Profiles at 20 or above | 5 / 30 |
| Profiles recording zero | 6 |
| Highest measured Week 8 score | 30 |
| Profiles increasing vs Week 7 | 12 |
| Profiles decreasing vs Week 7 | 12 |
| Profiles unchanged | 6 |
| Combined absolute movement | 106 points |
The contrast between these measures is important.
The aggregate score did not move at all, yet 24 of the 30 monitored profiles changed.
The five profiles reaching 20 or above were also unchanged in number from Week 7, while the highest individual score fell from 38 to 30.
Week 8 therefore represents another clear example of redistribution rather than broad-based growth or decline.
Week 8 Scorecard
| Policy domain | National | Labour | Green | NZ First | Te Pāti Māori | ACT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of Living | 30 | 23 | 17 | 10 | 9 | 11 |
| Crime & Public Safety | 13 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 2 |
| Economy, Jobs & Growth | 14 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Health | 24 | 29 | 22 | 11 | 12 | 16 |
| Housing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Important: Bold figures identify the highest measured AI Visibility Score within each policy-domain row. A tie is shown where applicable. These figures do not indicate policy quality, electoral support or voter preference.
Insight 1: A Flat Overall Score Masked 106 Points of Movement
The Week 7 average was 10.0.
The Week 8 average is also 10.0.
At the aggregate level, nothing appears to have changed.
At profile level, however, the information environment moved substantially.
Twelve profiles increased, 12 decreased and six remained unchanged. The absolute value of those individual movements totalled 106 points, approximately 38% more movement than occurred between Weeks 6 and 7.
The increases and decreases cancelled each other out exactly across the complete dataset.
This distinction is becoming one of the clearest findings of the study:
Aggregate stability and information stability are not the same thing.
The same overall score can be produced by substantially different combinations of party and policy visibility.
Looking further back reinforces the point.
Compared with the Week 1 baseline, 13 Week 8 profiles are now higher, 12 are lower and five are unchanged. Across those profiles there have been 129 points of absolute movement, while the overall average has moved from only 9.9 to 10.0.
Insight 2: Health Reached Its Highest Average of the Study
The largest policy-domain increase in Week 8 occurred in Health.
Its average increased from 16.7 in Week 7 to 19.0 in Week 8, a gain of approximately 2.3 points.
That is the highest Health domain average recorded during the eight weeks of the study.
| Party | Week 7 | Week 8 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 17 | 24 | +7 |
| Labour | 35 | 29 | -6 |
| Green | 20 | 22 | +2 |
| NZ First | 9 | 11 | +2 |
| Te Pāti Māori | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| ACT | 7 | 16 | +9 |
| Domain average | 16.7 | 19.0 | +2.3 |
The largest increase within Health came from ACT, which moved from 7 to 16. National increased from 17 to 24, while Green and NZ First also recorded increases.
Labour declined from 35 to 29 but remained the highest measured Health profile in Week 8.
Importantly, the increase in the domain average came from broader visibility across several profiles rather than a single unusually high score.
All six Health profiles recorded measurable visibility, and three recorded scores above 20.
Insight 3: Cost of Living Increased Despite a Major Redistribution Between Profiles
Cost of Living also moved upward at domain level.
Its average increased from 15.7 in Week 7 to 16.7 in Week 8.
But, again, the aggregate movement conceals substantial redistribution.
| Party | Week 7 | Week 8 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 22 | 30 | +8 |
| Labour | 38 | 23 | -15 |
| Green | 13 | 17 | +4 |
| NZ First | 6 | 10 | +4 |
| Te Pāti Māori | 5 | 9 | +4 |
| ACT | 10 | 11 | +1 |
| Domain average | 15.7 | 16.7 | +1.0 |
Five of the six profiles increased.
At the same time, Labour’s score declined by 15 points, from 38 to 23.
National moved from 22 to 30 and recorded the highest measured Cost of Living score in Week 8.
The result provides another example of why individual profile movement matters when interpreting the overall domain average.
Cost of Living became slightly more visible overall, but the distribution of that visibility changed substantially.
Insight 4: Economy and Crime Moved Back After Week 7
Two policy domains moved in the opposite direction.
Economy, Jobs & Growth declined from its seven-week high of 10.2 to 8.7.
Five of the six profiles decreased. National moved from 20 to 14, Labour from 15 to 14, Green from 11 to 10, NZ First from 5 to 2 and Te Pāti Māori from 9 to 6.
ACT was the exception, increasing from 1 to 6.
Despite the decline, the Week 8 Economy, Jobs & Growth average remains the second-highest level recorded for that domain during the study.
Crime & Public Safety recorded a larger domain-level decline, moving from 7.3 to 5.5.
National remained unchanged at 13, while Te Pāti Māori increased from 4 to 10. Labour declined from 13 to 5, Green from 4 to zero, NZ First from 7 to 3 and ACT from 3 to 2.
These movements again illustrate that policy-domain averages can change through multiple offsetting movements among individual profiles.
Insight 5: Housing Remained Almost Invisible
Housing remained the lowest-visibility policy domain in Week 8.
Its average was unchanged at approximately 0.2/100.
Five of the six Housing profiles recorded zero.
The only measurable score was NZ First at 1, replacing National as the single non-zero profile from Week 7.
| Party | Week 7 | Week 8 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| Labour | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NZ First | 0 | 1 | +1 |
| Te Pāti Māori | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ACT | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Domain average | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
Housing has now remained at very low measured visibility throughout the study.
The Week 8 result is particularly notable because the underlying profile producing the domain’s single point changed, while the overall domain average did not move.
Again, a stable aggregate score concealed a change in where visibility was located.
Policy-Domain Visibility Rotated Again
Week 8 produced material movement in four of the five monitored domains.
| Policy domain | Week 7 | Week 8 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 16.7 | 19.0 | +2.3 |
| Cost of Living | 15.7 | 16.7 | +1.0 |
| Economy, Jobs & Growth | 10.2 | 8.7 | -1.5 |
| Crime & Public Safety | 7.3 | 5.5 | -1.8 |
| Housing | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
Health has re-established itself as the highest-visibility policy domain.
Cost of Living also increased.
Economy, Jobs & Growth retreated from its Week 7 high, while Crime & Public Safety declined to one of its lowest levels of the study.
Housing remained effectively unchanged.
The overall average of 10.0 therefore tells only part of the Week 8 story.
Eight-Week Average AI Visibility Trend
| Reporting week | Average AI Visibility Score |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | 9.9 |
| Week 2 | 9.5 |
| Week 3 | 10.2 |
| Week 4 | 11.1 |
| Week 5 | 10.4 |
| Week 6 | 10.4 |
| Week 7 | 10.0 |
| Week 8 | 10.0 |
Week 4 remains the highest overall measured average of the study at 11.1.
Four weeks later, the overall average has returned to almost exactly the original Week 1 baseline.
But the information environment producing that average is not the same.
Different profiles are generating the visibility.
Different policy domains have strengthened and weakened.
And individual scores continue to move materially from week to week.
That is precisely why the longitudinal nature of the research matters.
What Week 8 Shows
Eight weeks of observation continue to separate two different characteristics of the AI information environment: the overall level of visibility and the distribution of that visibility.
The overall average remained unchanged at 10.0.
Yet 24 of the 30 monitored profiles moved, generating 106 points of absolute change.
Health reached its highest average of the study.
Cost of Living increased while redistributing substantially between profiles.
Economy, Jobs & Growth and Crime & Public Safety declined.
Housing remained close to zero.
And 25 of the 30 monitored profiles remain below 20/100.
The central Week 8 finding can therefore be summarised as:
Political-party AI visibility remains persistently low overall, but the information landscape underneath that headline continues to change materially from week to week.
What the Data Does — and Does Not — Tell Us
AI Visibility Scores measure the observable presence of monitored political-policy information within the defined CiteCompass generative-AI research framework.
They do not measure whether a policy is good or bad.
They do not measure electoral support.
They do not measure voter sentiment.
They do not predict election outcomes.
A higher AI Visibility Score should therefore not be interpreted as evidence that a party or policy is more popular, more credible or more effective.
The study is observational rather than a controlled experiment.
The online information environment can change because political parties publish or modify information, media coverage changes, government and institutional information changes, third-party sources change, and generative AI platforms and models themselves evolve.
For that reason, CiteCompass reports what changed in the measured environment without claiming that a particular campaign action, policy announcement, media event or technical change caused an individual score movement.
Our Governing Research Principle
Observe. Measure. Report. Do not advocate.
The CiteCompass NZ Election 2026 AI Visibility Monitor does not assess the merits of political policies, recommend how New Zealanders should vote, endorse or oppose political parties or candidates, predict election outcomes or measure voter preference.
CiteCompass remains politically independent and applies the same research architecture and measurement methodology across all six monitored parties.
About the NZ Election 2026 AI Visibility Monitor
The CiteCompass NZ Election 2026 AI Visibility Monitor is an independent 12-week longitudinal observational study examining how leading generative AI platforms surface, represent and cite publicly available political-policy information during the lead-up to the 2026 New Zealand General Election.
The study monitors six parliamentary political parties across five policy domains: Cost of Living; Economy, Jobs & Growth; Health; Housing; and Crime & Public Safety.
Thirty party-policy profiles are measured each week using an equivalent research framework, monitoring cadence and measurement methodology.
The study measures information visibility. It does not assess political merit.
Political Independence
CiteCompass is politically independent.
The research does not assess which political party has the best policies, endorse or oppose a political party or candidate, recommend how New Zealanders should vote, predict election results, constitute political polling, measure voter sentiment or claim that AI visibility determines voter behaviour.
CiteCompass reports measured changes in how publicly available political information is represented, surfaced, sourced and cited within generative AI systems.
CiteCompass will not provide AI-visibility optimisation services to any monitored political party or candidate for the duration of the research programme.
Research Information
| Week 1 baseline period | 17–24 August 2026 UTC |
| Week 8 reporting period | 5–12 October 2026 UTC |
| Study duration | 12 weeks |
| Parties monitored | 6 |
| Policy domains | 5 |
| Party-policy profiles | 30 |
| Research principle | Observe. Measure. Report. Do not advocate. |
Research and Media Enquiries
Journalists, researchers, political parties and other interested parties are welcome to contact CiteCompass regarding the research framework, methodology, published findings or objective factual corrections.