> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.synscribe.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# How to build an SEO performance review from GSC + PostHog

> Join what ranks (GSC) with what converts (PostHog) into one performance review — striking-distance, cannibalization, and AI-referral traffic, per pillar.

Build a performance review by joining what ranks (GSC) with what converts (PostHog), per pillar. Ask Pi to pull GSC with the `google-search-console-data` skill (period-over-period, striking-distance queries at positions 10–20, cannibalization), pull PostHog with the `posthog-analytics` skill (per-pillar funnels with AI-referral traffic split out), then reconcile the two into a keep / optimize / double-down verdict per pillar — the input to next cycle's plan. Attribution ([Part 1 §1.10](/theory/attribution)) earns its keep here: it exists to validate or invalidate a hypothesis, so a ranking on its own settles nothing — the join is what tells you which pillar actually drives revenue.

## Step 1: Pull GSC (what ranks, what's slipping, what's in reach)

```text theme={null}
Do a month-end GSC review: what's up and down vs the previous period, the
striking-distance queries (positions 10–20 with real impressions), and any cannibalization where
two of my pages compete for the same query.
```

Pi runs `google-search-console-data`, a compare-to-previous-period sweep of top pages and queries,
a striking-distance pass (positions 10–20 by impressions, the pages worth optimizing rather than
building new), and a query-to-pages check for cannibalization. Lead with the pattern ("clicks up
18%, driven by X, Y, Z") before the rows.

## Step 2: Pull PostHog (what converts, and what came from AI)

```text theme={null}
Find out from my PostHog what growth looks like over the last couple of months, and
whether it can be attributed to the blogs and /uses pages. Explore the events and funnels first,
then show — per pillar — funnel input, output (conversions), and contribution, with AI-referral
traffic split out separately. I'm validating whether these two things had real impact.
```

Pi runs `posthog-analytics`. It reads the Pages-with-AI-Traffic insight and the per-pillar funnels
from [2.6.1](/platform/posthog-dashboard-setup), and returns the conversion contribution per pillar
with AI-referred traffic isolated (classic rank tracking can't see that surface;
[§1.2](/theory/two-search-surfaces)).

## Step 3: Reconcile into one picture

```text theme={null}
Reconcile GSC and PostHog: for each pillar, line up what's ranking (clicks /
impressions / position) with what's converting (funnel to lead), and call out AI-referral traffic
separately. Which pillar should I double down on next cycle, and which striking-distance pages are
worth optimizing?
```

Pi joins the two sources per pillar and turns it into a keep, optimize, or double-down verdict,
which is the input to next cycle's plan.

> 🎬 **Video planned:** reconciling GSC + PostHog into one performance review (pull GSC, pull
> PostHog, reconcile AI traffic and pillar conversion, then write the review). See the shot-list.

**Back to:** [2.6 Analytics & review](/platform/index#2-6-—-analytics-&-review) · **Depends on:** [2.6.1 PostHog dashboard setup](/platform/posthog-dashboard-setup) · [2.1.3 Connect GSC](/platform/connect-gsc) · **Theory:** [1.10 Attribution](/theory/attribution)