The report uses AI-powered pairwise comparison with ELO rankings to evaluate 2–200 creative assets. The report header shows the study status, who created it, when it was created, and which audience was used.
The report is structured in the following order:
Objective Your original research objective, preserved verbatim.
Audiences The AI community used for the study, including name and description.
Use Case Type The use case selected, with each criterion and its weightage percentage displayed. All weightages sum to 100%. This gives full context for how assets were evaluated — for example, if Message Clarity had 25% weightage and Brand Fit had 25%, the final ranking reflects equal priority across those criteria.
Executive Summary An AI-generated infographic that visually summarizes the key findings of the study. The content and structure of the infographic is generated by AI based on your specific study results, so it will vary across studies. It is designed for decision speed — shareable directly with stakeholders without needing to walk through the full report.
Disclaimer displayed below the infographic: "Any assets (images) in the infographic is rendering of the originally uploaded assets by AI."
Full Ranking The complete ranked list of all assets. Each asset entry contains:
Rank number and asset preview (thumbnail for images, filename for text/video)
Overall summary — an explanation of why the asset ranked where it did overall, referencing its strongest and weakest criteria
Per-criterion score tags — e.g. Message Clarity #1, Brand Fit #2, Engagement Intent #3 — showing how the asset ranked on each individual criterion
Individual criterion breakdowns — one section per criterion, explaining in detail why the asset performed well or poorly on that specific dimension, and how it compared to other assets
About Your Rankings The last section of the report includes important context on how to interpret rankings:
Sampling & Methodology — rankings use smart sampling with AI personas for fast, cost-effective insights
Natural Variation — slight differences may appear across repeated runs; rankings typically maintain 95% consistency
Close Competition — when two creatives perform similarly, positions may occasionally swap; this means they are competitively matched, not that one is definitively better
Best Use — most valuable for identifying top and bottom performers and broad performance patterns, not for focusing on exact rank positions
Rankings are directional and should be used in combination with other signals to guide decision-making.