< Back to Dashboard

Sources & Methodology

// Data provenance, collection protocols, and analytical framework

1. Research Scope & Analytical Framework

The AI Situation Room is an independent, continuously updated observatory that tracks the global state of artificial intelligence through quantitative measurement. It synthesises heterogeneous data streams into composite indices designed for longitudinal monitoring rather than point-in-time snapshots.

Research Question

"How can we quantify the global state of AI across adoption, capability, geopolitics, market sentiment, and public interest—and present these dimensions as a single, interpretable dashboard?"

Analytical Pillars

The dashboard is organised around five orthogonal measurement dimensions:

Update Cadence

Data is updated through a combination of semi-automated API integrations (Arxiv, Google Trends) and manual curation via a restricted admin interface. The dashboard is not a real-time feed; update frequency varies by dataset from daily (ETF prices) to quarterly (robotics density). All timestamps reflect the date of last verified update, not the date of original publication by the source.

2. Composite Index Methodology

Five headline indices distil the dashboard's raw data into interpretable signals. Each index is constructed from weighted sub-components, documented below with their formulae, component definitions, source mappings, and weighting rationale.

2.1 World AI Adoption Index

A normalised composite (0–1 scale) capturing the breadth and depth of AI integration across society. The index deliberately weights enterprise adoption most heavily, reflecting the thesis that commercial deployment is the strongest near-term signal of systemic AI integration.

Formula WAI = 0.10 × A + 0.45 × E + 0.20 × D + 0.25 × I
ComponentSymbolWeightSourceProxy Metric
Public Awareness A 10% Google Trends Normalised global search interest for "AI" (0–100)
Enterprise Adoption E 45% Deloitte State of AI % of workers with access to AI tools; agentic AI deployment rate
Developer Adoption D 20% GitHub Agentic framework GitHub stars normalised against total developer population
Industrial Automation I 25% IFR / Google Deep Search Robotics density (robots per 10k manufacturing employees)
Weighting Rationale Enterprise adoption receives the highest weight (45%) because it represents tangible organisational commitment—budget allocation, workflow integration, and productivity impact—as opposed to passive awareness or open-source experimentation. Industrial automation (25%) captures physical-world AI deployment, which lags digital adoption but has higher irreversibility. Developer adoption (20%) signals the pipeline of future applications. Public awareness (10%) is capped low to avoid conflating media hype with structural adoption.

2.2 Progress to AGI Index

An experimental metric estimating cumulative progress toward artificial general intelligence, expressed as a percentage. The index uses a geometric mean of three sub-dimensions to enforce the constraint that balanced progress across all fronts is required—excellence in one area cannot compensate for near-zero capability in another.

Formula AGI = (Intelligence × Digital_Agency × Physical_Agency)1/3
Sub-IndexCurrent ValueDefinition
Intelligence 60.00% Frontier model performance on reasoning, coding, and knowledge benchmarks relative to estimated human-expert ceiling
Digital Agency 57.74% Ability of AI systems to autonomously plan, execute multi-step tasks, use tools, and self-correct in digital environments
Physical Agency 3.50% Robotic manipulation, locomotion, and real-world task completion relative to human dexterity and adaptability
Why Geometric Mean? The geometric mean is chosen over the arithmetic mean because it penalises dimensional imbalance. A system scoring 90% on intelligence but 1% on physical agency yields ~9.7% under geometric averaging vs. ~30.3% arithmetically. This reflects the assumption that AGI requires simultaneous competence across cognitive and embodied domains, not just peak performance in one.

2.2b Estimated AGI Year (Time to AGI)

A forward-looking projection of when each AGI pillar reaches 100%, derived from the Progress to AGI index above. The estimated year is determined by the bottleneck—the slowest pillar to reach full capability. This is a moderate scenario using conservative growth assumptions.

Formula (per pillar) months_to_100 = ln(100 / current_pct) / r

Where r is the monthly exponential growth rate. The estimated year is then: current_year + months_to_100 / 12, taken from the pillar with the largest value (the bottleneck).

PillarGrowth ModelProjected Year
Intelligence (P1) Historical exponential fit from frontier model scores (3 data points, Jan 2024–present) ~2027
Digital Agency (P2) Historical exponential fit from agentic adoption data (Deloitte survey, 2 data points) ~2027
Physical Agency (P3) Industry-forecast CAGR of 35% (moderate estimate, IFR & analyst consensus for robotics deployment) ~2037
Why use a forecast CAGR for Physical Agency? Robotics density has only two historical data points spanning ~15 months, yielding an unrealistically slow growth rate. Industry forecasts from IFR and major investment banks project 30–50% compound annual growth in robotics deployment as humanoid robots scale. A moderate 35% CAGR is used as a middle-ground assumption. The estimated year is capped between 2027 and 2080 as a sanity bound.

2.3 AI Bubble Index

A market-sentiment gauge measuring the ratio of hype momentum to fundamental value creation, modulated by a substance factor. Higher values indicate greater divergence between narrative enthusiasm and demonstrated economic utility.

Formula Bubble = (Hype_Growth / Value_Growth) × Substance_Modifier
ComponentCurrentDefinition
Hype Growth (H) 16.87 Year-over-year growth in public search interest, media mentions, and ETF inflows
Value Growth (V) 2.05 Year-over-year growth in verifiable enterprise adoption metrics and revenue attribution
Substance Modifier (S) 0.92 Dampening factor (0–1.5) based on benchmark improvements and capability milestones

Scale Interpretation

< 3 Grounded 3–6 Warming 6–10 Heated > 10 Danger

2.4 Global AI Power Index

A composite country-level ranking scoring 12 nations across five strategic pillars. Each pillar is normalised to a 0–100 scale using min-max normalisation within the observed dataset, then weighted and summed.

Formula Powerc = 0.20×Infra + 0.15×HW + 0.20×IP + 0.15×Research + 0.30×Models
PillarWeightProxy Indicators
Infrastructure 20% Number of AI-relevant datacenters (hyperscale and colocation)
Hardware 15% Domestic AI chip / semiconductor fabrication facilities
IP (Patents) 20% Total AI-related patent registrations (Lens.org)
Research 15% AI papers published since Jan 2026 (Arxiv API)
Models 30% Number of frontier models originating from the country ranked on Artificial Analysis
Weighting Rationale Models receive the highest weight (30%) because frontier AI capability is the most direct expression of a nation's AI power—it requires the confluence of talent, compute, data, and capital. Infrastructure and IP share 20% each as they represent the long-term foundation. Hardware and research at 15% each capture supply-chain control and the academic pipeline respectively.

2.5 Intelligence Doubling Time

An exponential-growth metric measuring how many months it takes the frontier AI intelligence score to double. Analogous to Moore's Law for transistors, this index tracks the pace of AI capability improvement rather than absolute capability. A declining doubling time indicates accelerating progress.

Formula Tdouble = Δt / log2(Scoreend / Scorestart)
ComponentDefinition
Overall Doubling Time Months for the best Intelligence benchmark score to double, computed across the full historical time span
Recent Doubling Time Doubling time computed from the last two data points only, capturing the most recent pace of progress
Trend Accelerating if recent < 85% of overall; Decelerating if recent > 115% of overall; Steady otherwise
Data Source & Methodology The metric is derived from the model_rankings table (Intelligence ranking type). At each distinct date_updated, the highest score among all models is selected. The resulting time series of frontier scores is fitted to an exponential model to extract the doubling period. This approach assumes exponential growth—if the underlying trajectory is sigmoidal (approaching a ceiling), the metric will show deceleration. A minimum of two data points is required; the metric returns null if insufficient history exists.

3. Data Sources Registry

The following table catalogues every dataset consumed by the dashboard, including provenance, collection method, temporal coverage, and known constraints. All data is stored as JSON exports from a SQLite database.

3.1 Model Rankings

FieldDetail
SourceArtificial Analysis
Records57 models across 5 ranking categories
CategoriesIntelligence, Coding, Agentic, Text-to-Image, Open Source Intelligence
CollectionManual curation from leaderboard snapshots
FrequencyWeekly to bi-weekly
Key Fieldsmodel_name, score, ranking_type, country_of_origin, date_updated
LimitationsBenchmark scores may not reflect real-world performance; leaderboard methodology is controlled by Artificial Analysis and may change without notice

3.2 Geopolitics

FieldDetail
Sources Lens.org (patents), Arxiv API (papers), Google Deep Search (datacenters, hardware)
Records52 records across 4 indicator types
IndicatorsDatacenters (14), Hardware factories (13), AI Patents (13), Papers published (13)
Countries12 nations + world aggregate
CollectionAPI queries (Arxiv), database search (Lens.org), manual verification (infrastructure counts)
FrequencyMonthly
LimitationsDatacenter counts are approximations; patent databases have filing-to-publication lags of 12–18 months; Arxiv skews toward English-language and Western-institution publications

3.3 AI Public Interest

FieldDetail
SourceGoogle Trends
Records793 data points
CoverageMarch 2021 – present, monthly granularity
MetricRelative search interest (0–100 scale, normalised to peak within the period)
CollectionGoogle Trends export + manual entry
FrequencyMonthly
LimitationsGoogle Trends data is relative, not absolute; geographic weighting favours countries with higher internet penetration; the search term "AI" may capture non-AI queries in some languages. For Italy, the search term "IA" (Intelligenza Artificiale) is used instead of "AI" to better capture local-language search behaviour; weekly Google Trends exports are averaged to monthly granularity

3.4 ETF Prices

FieldDetail
SourceGoogle Finance
ETF TrackedRoundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF (CHAT)
Records39 price points
CoverageJanuary 2025 – present
CollectionManual price recording from Google Finance
FrequencyWeekly to bi-weekly
LimitationsSingle ETF as market proxy; does not capture private market valuations, venture capital flows, or non-US-listed AI equities; ETF composition changes over time

3.5 Enterprise AI Adoption

FieldDetail
SourceDeloitte State of AI in Enterprise
Records4 (2 metrics × 2 time periods)
MetricsWorker access to AI tools (%), Agentic AI adoption rate (%)
CollectionManual extraction from Deloitte report publications
FrequencyAnnual (aligned with Deloitte publication cycle)
LimitationsSurvey-based; sample skews toward large enterprises in developed markets; self-reported adoption may overstate actual integration depth

3.6 AI Chatbot Website Traffic

FieldDetail
SourceSimilarWeb Pro
Records4 websites (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot)
MetricEstimated monthly unique visitors
CollectionManual extraction from SimilarWeb dashboard
FrequencyMonthly
LimitationsSimilarWeb estimates are modelled, not measured; API-only usage (not through web interface) is not captured; mobile app traffic may be under-counted

3.7 Agentic Frameworks

FieldDetail
SourceGitHub
Records5 frameworks (Openclaw, CrewAI, smolagents, NemotronClaw, PydanticAI)
MetricGitHub star count
CollectionManual snapshot from GitHub repository pages
FrequencyBi-weekly
LimitationsStars are a popularity signal, not a usage metric; does not capture enterprise adoption via private forks or internal deployments; star-farming is possible

3.8 Robotics & Physical Automation

FieldDetail
SourceInternational Federation of Robotics (IFR) via Google Deep Search
Records4 (2 metrics × 2 time periods)
MetricsTotal industrial robots deployed (millions), Robotics density (per 10k employees)
CollectionSecondary source extraction (IFR reports cited via search)
FrequencyQuarterly to annual
LimitationsIFR data has a 6–12 month reporting lag; "industrial robots" definition excludes consumer, agricultural, and service robots; density metric uses manufacturing employment only

3.9 Key Metrics (Computed)

FieldDetail
SourceDerived — computed from datasets 3.1–3.8
Records5 composite indices
IndicesWorld AI Adoption, Progress to AGI, AI Bubble Index, Global AI Power Index, Intelligence Doubling Time
CollectionServer-side computation on data export
FrequencyRecomputed on each data update
LimitationsComposite quality is bounded by the accuracy and timeliness of upstream datasets; see Section 6 for a full discussion of limitations

4. Data Collection & Processing Pipeline

Data flows through a four-stage pipeline from source acquisition to frontend rendering. No stage is fully automated; human verification is required at each checkpoint to ensure data integrity.

Source APIs & Manual Entry
Admin Validation
SQLite Storage
JSON Export
Frontend Render

4.1 Acquisition

4.2 Validation

4.3 Storage

All validated data is stored in a SQLite database (ai_situation_room.db) with 9 normalised tables. The schema enforces primary keys, non-null constraints on required fields, and foreign-key-like consistency for country codes.

4.4 Export & Rendering

A Python export script (export_data.py) serialises each table to JSON in the data/ directory alongside a metadata.json manifest containing row counts and export timestamps. The frontend consumes these JSON files directly via fetch requests, with Chart.js handling visualisation.

5. Normalization & Weighting Procedures

5.1 Min-Max Normalization

Country-level indicators in the Global AI Power Index are normalised using min-max scaling within each pillar:

Min-Max Normalization X_norm = (X - X_min) / (X_max - X_min) × 100

This maps each country's raw score to a 0–100 range within the observed dataset. The normalisation is relative, not absolute—a country scoring 100 is the best in the current sample, not at a theoretical maximum.

5.2 Percentage-Based Scaling

The World AI Adoption Index components are expressed as percentages or ratios before weighting. Where raw data is not natively percentage-based (e.g., GitHub stars), it is normalised against an estimated total population denominator.

5.3 Weight Selection

Composite index weights are determined through editorial judgement, not statistical optimisation. Weights reflect the research team's assessment of each component's relative importance to the phenomenon being measured. All weights are disclosed in Section 2 and should be interpreted as explicit analytical choices, not objective truths.

Sensitivity Consideration Users should be aware that altering weights can materially change index values. For example, shifting Enterprise Adoption weight from 45% to 30% in the WAI would lower the current index from 0.31 to approximately 0.26, a −16% change. The dashboard does not currently offer user-adjustable weights, but this is under consideration for a future interactive mode.

6. Limitations & Caveats

Transparency about limitations is essential for responsible interpretation. The following constraints should be considered when citing or acting upon dashboard outputs.

6.1 Data Freshness & Latency

6.2 Source Bias

6.3 Methodological Limitations

6.4 Missing Dimensions

6.5 Peer Review Status

This methodology has not been peer-reviewed or published in an academic venue. The indices are designed for monitoring and discussion, not for policy decisions or investment advice. Users are encouraged to examine the underlying data and form independent assessments.

7. Versioning & Change Log

The methodology is versioned to track analytical evolution. Breaking changes to index formulae or weight structures will increment the major version; data source additions or corrections increment the minor version.

DateVersionChangeAffected
2026-03-24 v1.0 Initial methodology documentation published; all 4 composite indices documented with formulae, weights, and source mappings All indices
2026-03-24 v1.0 Data Sources Registry established with 9 datasets fully catalogued All datasets
2026-03-24 v1.1 Italy Google Trends data replaced: search term changed from “AI” to “IA” (Intelligenza Artificiale) to better reflect local-language search patterns; source data converted from weekly to monthly averages AI Public Interest (Italy)
2026-03-24 v1.2 New composite index added: Intelligence Doubling Time. Tracks how many months it takes frontier AI benchmark scores to double, with overall rate, recent rate, and acceleration trend. Derived from model_rankings Intelligence scores using exponential growth model Intelligence Doubling Time (new index)
2026-03-25 v1.3 New metric added: Estimated AGI Year (Time to AGI). Projects when each AGI pillar reaches 100% using exponential growth (P1, P2) and industry-forecast 35% CAGR (P3). The bottleneck pillar determines the estimated arrival year. Hero card updated from “Progress to AGI” percentage to “Time to AGI” year display Estimated AGI Year (new metric), Progress to AGI (hero card redesign)

8. Citation & Contact

Suggested Citation

@misc{aisituationroom2026,
  title = {AI Situation Room: The Pulse of Artificial Intelligence},
  author = {AI Situation Room},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://aisituationroom.com/sources-methodology},
  note = {Accessed: 2026-03-24. Independent AI analytics dashboard.}
}

Contact & Correspondence

For methodological inquiries, data corrections, or collaboration proposals:

Data Usage & Disclaimer

All data displayed on this dashboard is aggregated from publicly available sources cited above. The composite indices and analytical commentary represent independent editorial analysis and do not constitute financial advice, policy recommendations, or official benchmarking. Redistribution of aggregated data should credit the original sources and this dashboard.