Every number on this page comes from one place: our live register of classified AI domains and our ongoing review of vendor terms. No third-party surveys, no invented percentages, and each stat carries its implication.
A statistic without an implication is decoration. Each tile pairs the measurement with what it means for your network.
The Policy Silence Index finding, from 13,000+ terms reviewed. Silence, not disclosure, is the market's default state.
Confirmed train-by-default verdicts, typically in consumer and free tiers, where shadow usage concentrates.
Wrapper and white-label products resolved to their backing providers, with OpenAI, Anthropic and Google the most common.
Each with category, risk level, sovereignty flag, abusive-purpose flag and a dated training verdict.
The daily screening stream from a 120 million domain corpus that keeps the register current.
From text and code assistants to agents, transcription and model infrastructure.
Across the reviewed terms, four verdict states cover the market. The bar shows the shape that matters: silence dominates.
Segment percentages beyond the 85.5% silence figure shift as reviews continue; the bar shows the current shape rather than a frozen claim. Your own network's split is what the audit measures.
The wrapper economy means tool counts overstate diversity. The provider mapping shows what your data actually reaches.
Statistics pages earn trust by explaining themselves. Ours reduce to three processes.
Roughly 300,000 new domains a day from a 120 million domain corpus are checked for AI signals, feeding the register's growth and its freshness.
Vendor terms are read for training positions, producing dated verdicts. 13,000+ reviewed to date; the 85.5% silence rate is this process's headline output.
Products are mapped to the models and providers behind them, resolving the wrapper economy into actual data paths.
Presentation rule for this page: our analysis, our database, stated as such. Nothing here is quoted from third-party surveys, and nothing is a projection.
Market statistics set expectations; your audit sets facts. The comparison is where the insight lives.
| Market base rate | Your audit's counterpart | If yours is worse |
|---|---|---|
| 85.5% of tools silent on training | Share of your found tools with "Not stated" verdicts | Your stack skews consumer-tier; prioritize enterprise migrations. |
| 700+ train-by-default tools exist | Your "Trains by default" count | Above a handful, treat as an active leak, not a statistic. |
| Wrappers concentrate on few providers | Distinct tools vs distinct backends in your list | Consolidate contracts at the backend level and cut the wrapper tail. |
| Tools span 18 categories | Categories present in your network | Categories with no owner in the room need one before next quarter. |
Getting your rates costs one log export: uploads are read once and discarded, and the free preview returns your category and risk totals in minutes.
The sample report shows how these statistics render as your network's own tiles and verdict columns. Then one export replaces the sample data with yours.
These statistics end up in board decks and policy drafts. Three rules keep the citations defensible.
The register grows daily, so quote the count with the date you saw it. This page always shows the live figure.
"Of AI tools reviewed in a 13,000+ terms analysis" is accurate. "Of all AI tools everywhere" is not what any measurement can claim.
Market rates argue urgency; your report argues specifics. Decks that carry both survive questioning; decks with only base rates do not.
The shadow AI content economy runs on unverifiable percentages. We decline four popular ones.
Self-reported survey numbers about secretive behavior are structurally unreliable. Your per-user table measures your answer instead.
Loss extrapolations stack assumptions we cannot audit. We publish counts we can regenerate on demand.
We never read prompt content, by design, so we will not quote anyone who claims to have measured it at market scale.
Whose adoption, measured how? Our register growth is a supply-side signal we can state; demand claims need your logs.
From our review of 13,000+ AI vendor terms documents: 85.5% take no stated position on training with user data.
Live. The number on this page is fetched from the register at page load, and screening adds to it daily.
Because we cannot verify them. Everything here is our own measurement, stated with its scope, which is the standard we would want from anyone else.
They are base rates, not your rates. A free audit preview measures your own network's counterparts in minutes.
700+ confirmed train-by-default tools, plus opt-out tools where past prompts may already be used. Combined with silent terms, unprotected states dominate the market.
In our mapping of 3,900+ tools to their backing providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google appear most often.
Run the free preview and put your own network's statistics next to these.
Run the free audit