Playbook replay
Vet creator authenticity
An amber verdict from the comment-to-like ratio, plus an explicit list of the signals the numbers given could not cover.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
A 6% engagement rate at 48k reads healthy and is exactly what a well-run pod produces. The rate on its own cannot separate the two, so it is the wrong thing to lead with.
Working the ratios first, then reading the comments themselves. The numbers tell you where to look; only the comments tell you whether what you found is real.
The ratios
| Signal | Value | Normal at 48k | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement rate | 6.1% | 2 to 5% | High, not impossible |
| Comments per 1,000 followers | 0.85 | 1.5 to 4 | Low |
| Comment-to-like ratio | 1:71 | 1:20 to 1:40 | Outside the band |
| Follower growth | Steady, no spikes | Clean |
The follower curve is genuinely clean: no overnight jumps, no plateau followed by a step. Whatever is happening here, it is not a bulk follower purchase.
The comment-to-like ratio is the problem. Likes are cheap to inflate and comments are not, so a high like count sitting on a thin comment count is the classic shape. At 2,900 likes you would expect somewhere between 70 and 145 comments. There are 41.
Verdict: amber
Not red. The follower history is clean, the comments that exist are specific rather than generic, and I found no repeated phrasing across threads, which is what a comment pod usually leaves behind.
Not green either. The like-to-comment gap is real and has an innocent explanation and a bad one, and I cannot tell which from these numbers:
- Innocent: their content is aesthetic rather than conversational. Flat-lay and routine content gets liked and scrolled past. This is common in this niche.
- Bad: likes have been topped up and the comments are what real engagement actually looks like. That would put the true engagement rate nearer 1.5%.
What I could not check, most important first
- Saves and shares. The strongest authenticity signal available on Instagram and the one that would settle this immediately. Only the creator can give you it, and asking is a reasonable request at this budget.
- Story view count against follower count. Bought likes do not lift Story views. A ratio under about 5% would move this to red.
- Audience geography. If most of the audience is outside your shipping markets, the verdict barely matters.
- Reach versus impressions on recent posts.
What I would do: ask for a screenshot of their last five posts' insights, including saves and Story views. A creator with real engagement sends it back the same day. Hesitation on that specific request is itself informative.
Where this stops. This is a read of the numbers you gave me plus the public comment threads. Full audit reports with the historical charts behind them are on the roadmap.
Naise created an artifact
Clean follower history, but a comment-to-like ratio outside the normal band, with two competing explanations.
Verdict: amber
| Signal | Value | Normal | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement rate | 6.1% | 2 to 5% | High |
| Comments per 1k followers | 0.85 | 1.5 to 4 | Low |
| Comment-to-like | 1:71 | 1:20 to 1:40 | Outside band |
| Follower growth | Steady | Clean |
Two explanations, both live. Aesthetic content gets liked and scrolled past. Or the likes were topped up and the comments are the real number.
Settles it: ask for saves and Story views on their last five posts. A creator with real engagement sends that back same day.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free