Read AI opportunity queries as ranges
In Bing Webmaster Tools, a missing Topics tab means insufficient data. Citation volumes on opportunity queries are ranges, not a score you can rank to the unit.
An AI-search report that prints a range is not hiding the exact number from you. The range is the number. If you turn it into a precise gap and brief a writer against that gap, you invented a precision the tool refused to give.
Microsoft's Bing Webmaster blog dated October 13, 2026 announces Topics Portfolio, a beta tab inside the AI Performance report. It groups grounding queries where your site appears into themes. Topic Size, Sites Cited, and Queries are approximate. Opportunity citation volumes are ranges. The post says to treat the numbers as directional signals, not as a precise ledger.
That is the whole trap. A dashboard with columns feels like analytics. The authors of the feature are telling you it is a planning sketch.
- Sign in to Bing Webmaster Tools and open the AI Performance report.
- Select the Topics tab. The post's condition for seeing it is sufficient data. If the tab is missing, stop. Do not file a bug against the feature, and do not tell a teammate the report failed.
- Choose a one-, two-, or three-month window. Start with topics where your citations are already concentrated, then read the opportunity queries.
- Write the opportunity volume down as the range the screen shows. If you need a single integer for a spreadsheet, you do not have one. Leave the cell as a range or leave it blank.
- Use the thumbs on a topic row or an opportunity query when the label is wrong. The post says those signals go to the team working on classification. A branded query can show up as an opportunity. The post's own example is a Running Shoes topic listing a competitor brand. Mark that down instead of treating it as a content hole.
- Click a topic only after you have accepted the two tables underneath: queries you already appear on, and queries where other sites appear and you do not. Those are the two halves. Do not merge them into one "coverage percent." The post does not publish that percent.
- A status update that says the Topics tab is broken because a small site cannot see it.
- A content calendar ranked by opportunity volume to the citation.
- A competitive claim built from Topic Size as if it were your traffic.
- A query moved into a topic you would have named differently, treated as a taxonomy error in your CMS. The post says classification is AI-generated and can be imperfect.
Open AI Performance. If Topics is there, copy one opportunity query and the range beside it into your notes, with the word "range" in the label. If Topics is not there, write "insufficient data" and close the tab. Either note is more honest than a percentage you calculated yourself.