# Read LinkedIn Page content analytics without mixing its scopes

Original constructed exercises. No real account data, study participants or customer outcomes. The two expanded comparisons retain six earlier cases in total; those are not new cases.

## Calculate three bounded conclusions

G1 — Constructed post: 1,000 impressions, 20 Page clicks, 10 reactions, five comments and five reposts. Under the declared Page interaction definition, 40 / 1,000 = 4%. Clicks / impressions is 2%; reactions plus comments / impressions is 1.5%. These are three different numerators, not three competing measurements of one rate. The 20 clicks do not establish 20 website visitors.

G2 — Constructed scope mismatch: Page boosted-feed reporting shows 600 impressions and a broader Campaign Manager report shows 900. No evidence establishes identical placements and distribution. Outcome: keep both source scopes; the difference of 300 is arithmetic, not a measured reporting error or organic reach estimate.

G3 — Constructed aggregation: eligible daily observations are 100 and 150, with an aggregate total of 250. Adding all three yields 500 and double-counts the same declared activity. Outcome: report 250 for that explicitly defined additive impression series. This does not license summing distinct reach across days or combining rows with incompatible definitions.