Since launch · 22 July 2026 to 9 September 2026 · refreshed 9 September 2026
Who reads it
Analytics packages count visitors. Most of those visitors are neither people nor readers, so the figure HSREP publishes is the one that survives contact with that fact: how many stayed long enough to have read something.
HSREP does not publish a visitor count. Of the 379 visitors Google Analytics reports over the same window, at least 104 resolve to Ashburn, Council Bluffs and Boardman — hyperscale datacentre locations, not readers. Only the largest cities are reported to us, so that deduction is a floor.
The figures above are Google Analytics engagement-time and scroll-depth buckets, which describe what someone did rather than that a request arrived. They are smaller than a visitor count and they are the ones worth quoting.
How they arrived
Where the visits came from since launch. The ordering is worth holding onto, because it does not match the ordering of impressions: the platform that showed the argument to the most people is not the platform that brought the most of them here.
Within social
Season 1 carried 36,997 impressions on Facebook and 13,054 on LinkedIn. Since launch this site has taken 102 sessions from Facebook and 20 from LinkedIn. The two platforms rank in opposite orders depending on whether you count who saw an argument or who followed it home.
The windows and the metrics differ, so this is not a conversion rate and is not written as one. The ordering is the finding.
Read by machines
The least expected finding on this page, and the one with the clearest implication for anyone publishing health evidence now. HSREP is read far more by AI systems than by search engines, and some of those fetches were triggered by a person asking an assistant a question.
| Agent | Fetches |
|---|---|
| ClaudeBot | 153 |
| OAI-SearchBot | 46 |
| Amazonbot | 41 |
| GPTBot | 31 |
| ChatGPT-User | 7 |
| Claude-User | 2 |
| Meta-ExternalAgent | 1 |
The two highlighted rows are the ones that represent a person: an assistant fetching this site because someone asked it a question. Over the same seven days Google search delivered 1 click in total, at an average position of 16.2.
Scale, for honesty: 6,841 bot requests reached the site in that window against 29 human visits. Most of that is ordinary crawling and probing. The AI share is what is new.
What people did
Every recorded action since launch, published in full rather than filtered to the flattering ones. The distribution is the useful part: it shows which argument the audience is actually standing next to.
The per-control breakdown was not returned by the most recent refresh, so it is left out rather than shown as zeros. It returns on the next one.
Where attention went
The initiative page drew 189 section views against the roundtable page’s 18. That is the audience saying where its attention already is, and it is why the featured roundtable question is now the one that belongs to the Prevention Adoption Gap.
What did not work
An impact page that only reports what succeeded is a brochure. This is the section that makes the rest of the page worth believing.
Roundtable № 01 opened on 11 August 2026 for fourteen days and closed on 25 August 2026 with no responses. 11 people clicked through to the response form over the life of the site and none submitted one.
Two causes, both now fixed. The question asked professionals to report on platform analytics most of them have no reason to have seen, so it was reframed on 9 September and two further questions were opened beside it. And the form sat on another domain, which is where the eleven were lost; it now sits on the roundtable page itself.
Whether that was the right diagnosis is not yet known. It will be visible here either way.
Season impact
Each season's campaign data lives on its own hub, where it sits beside the arguments it belongs to. The headline figures are here; the full record, the eleven findings and the per-piece breakdown are one click away.
A sum of platform impressions. Not reach, not people. Reconciled above 94% against full-campaign dashboard locks. Every piece, its media package and the eleven findings drawn from this data live on the season hub.
Method, and what it cannot tell you
Site figures come from Google Analytics 4 and Cloudflare on hsraep.org, refreshed from the same dashboard that produces them, so the site and the dashboard cannot disagree. Season 1 campaign figures come from platform-native analytics and are reconciled and documented separately.
What these numbers cannot tell you. Visitor counts include automated traffic that no filter removes completely, so the datacentre deduction above is a floor and not a ceiling. Engagement time is measured by the browser and stops when a tab is backgrounded. Search Console and Analytics count different things over different windows and are never added together. Audience composition comes from samples in the hundreds and describes who was reached, never a population. Nothing on this page is an experiment: it is one practitioner's observational record, useful for generating hypotheses and not for settling them.
Reserved, and rendered only once there is something to report:
- responses on the record, by question
- published roundtable syntheses
- registrations and participants by affiliation
- presentation requests and partnership enquiries
- downloads by asset
- Season 2 campaign data