Google’s current AI Max Help says broad keywords are no longer treated as exact match for prioritisation when campaign-level broad match is turned off or a campaign moves to AI Max. If preserving the former setting’s priority for selected terms matters, Google says to add exact-match copies to the new AI Max campaign. Converting a broad keyword to exact removes its historical keyword stats; if standard AI Max exact-match prioritisation is acceptable, no copy action is needed. Google’s Help page states the rule.
This is a configuration and measurement decision, not a performance result. Google’s published September migration dates have passed, but a rollout schedule does not show whether a specific campaign changed. Check the campaign’s current state before acting. Google’s migration notice separates the September phase from the later Dynamic Search Ads migration.
What the new AI Max rule changes
When the campaign-level broad-match setting is turned off or a campaign moves to AI Max, a broad keyword no longer receives the setting’s former exact-like priority just because its wording matches the query. This is a change to prioritisation, not a statement that broad match cannot match the query.
Google says to add exact-match copies in the new AI Max campaign when the earlier priority is important. If the account prefers standard exact-match prioritisation in AI Max, no special copy action is required. Google’s Help page gives both choices.
This is a choice, not a universal recommendation. Use exact-match copies only for terms whose routing or governance makes the extra objects worthwhile. The right path depends on the account’s brand/non-brand structure, measurement plan and reason for enabling AI Max.
Why the September timing matters
Google’s 12 August 2026 Developer Blog divided the legacy migrations into phases. Phase 1 was scheduled to roll out progressively from 1 to 30 September 2026 for Search campaigns using campaign-level broad match or standalone automatically created assets; that announced window has elapsed. Phase 2 for Dynamic Search Ads is scheduled for February 2027. Do not treat either date as evidence that a particular account has already changed. Google’s migration notice gives the announced timetable.
The same notice says Google blocked creation of new legacy campaign-level broad-match configurations and legacy automatically created assets across the UI, Google Ads Editor and the API from 3 August 2026. Existing campaigns still need an inventory. A published window is a schedule, not an account-level migration record.
AI Brief languages and reporting: keep the timelines separate
On 23 September 2026, Google said the closed beta of AI Brief was expanding to Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish. Google describes AI Brief as a way to give AI Max context about a business, audience and key messaging. The post does not announce general availability or a change to Search campaign language targeting. Treat these as beta languages, not as proof that every advertiser can use them. Read Google’s announcement.
Reporting has a separate timeline. Current Google Ads Help documents a Search terms and ad combinations view, formerly called Search terms and landing pages from AI Max. The view lists search terms, headlines, landing pages, campaigns and ad groups. Google had already announced headlines and URLs in Search terms reporting when it introduced AI Max for Search campaigns in May 2025. The current reporting Help page documents that view, and Google’s May 2025 launch post records the earlier reporting update.
The 23 September 2026 post separately announces a new unified view linking search terms, creative assets and landing pages, with additional details and availability promised later in 2026. Neither that announcement nor the current reporting Help page explains whether the feature expands, replaces or renames the currently documented view, or whether it covers the same assets. Keep that relationship and account-specific access unknown; do not present the announcement as an available-now feature.
For a migration check, connect the exact-copy or standard-priority decision to the search term, match source, headline and landing page where the current report exposes them. Save the date range and filters. Google warns that filtering the Search terms report for match type “AI Max” can omit “Other search terms,” so the filtered view is not a complete account export. A report can help trace a path; it does not prove incremental performance. Google’s reporting guidance describes the filter limitation.
Two valid prioritisation choices
| Account objective | What to verify | Documented decision |
|---|---|---|
| Preserve the previous broad-setting prioritisation for selected terms | Identify the exact terms whose routing matters, then compare the existing campaign structure with the new AI Max campaign. | Add exact-match copies in the new AI Max campaign, following Google’s guidance. Record the reason and any governance owner. |
| Use standard exact-match prioritisation in the AI Max account | Confirm the account’s Search and Performance Max structure and ensure identical exact keywords are eligible where the business needs that preference. | No special copy action is required under Google’s current wording, but normal keyword, brand and query controls still apply. |
Do not treat the first row as a universal recommendation. Exact-match copies can make ownership clearer for a protected brand or high-value query, but they also add objects to govern. Conversely, doing nothing may be correct when the account intentionally accepts the standard prioritisation logic. Write the objective before changing the campaign.
Historical statistics: the trade-off to record
Google says a broad keyword can be converted to exact, but that conversion removes historical keyword statistics. That is a data-continuity warning for the conversion, not a statement that historical data disappears from every report. Before editing, export the relevant keyword, search-term, campaign and conversion views using the account’s existing date and attribution definitions. Keep the original match type, campaign, keyword text, status and export time in the change receipt. Google’s broad-match Help page states the conversion caveat.
If the team chooses exact-match copies instead of converting the broad keyword, record both the old and new objects. Define which object owns the query, how negatives and brand controls apply, and which report will be used for the comparison. Avoid counting the same business outcome twice simply because the account has two keyword objects with related text.
How Google’s priority ladder fits together
Google’s current prioritisation guidance describes a ladder rather than a promise that a chosen keyword will always serve. At the top, an eligible exact-match keyword identical to the query is prioritised over broad or phrase keywords and a Performance Max campaign. Identical phrase and broad keywords, including AI Max, share a lower priority with an identical Performance Max search theme. AI-based relevance then narrows eligible ad groups, and Ad Rank resolves cases that remain tied.
Google defines identical terms to include spelling corrections, but not plurals or synonyms. For Lens, AI Mode and AI Overviews, Google says an approximated term may be shown for advanced intent; the reported text may not be literal input. Read it with the keyword and match-source evidence rather than infer priority from text alone. Google’s prioritisation guidance documents these cases.
Eligibility can override an expected preference. Google lists budget limits, low search volume, disapproved creatives or landing pages and unmet targeting requirements as examples. Therefore a test receipt should record eligibility state, budget status, approvals, targeting, query, landing page and Ad Rank context where available. A keyword-priority rule is not a guarantee that an ad will enter every auction.
Migration-readiness checklist
- Identify campaigns that used campaign-level broad match or standalone automatically created assets. Keep the account ID, campaign ID, campaign name and extraction time with the migration record.
- Separate campaign-level broad match from ordinary ad-group broad keywords. The September Phase 1 notice does not make every broad keyword a migration candidate.
- List exact-match terms whose routing or brand protection has a business reason. Do not duplicate an entire keyword list without an objective.
- Choose the prioritisation path: exact copies to preserve the prior behaviour, or standard AI Max prioritisation with no special copy action.
- Record whether a broad keyword was converted, copied or left in place, and preserve the historical-statistics warning in the change log.
- Audit brand inclusions and exclusions, negatives, locations, language, budgets, bidding, approvals, final URLs and tracking templates before comparing results.
- Set a predeclared comparison window and one primary outcome, such as qualified leads or completed purchase value. Keep CRM qualification and attribution settings visible.
- Read back search terms, source and match-type columns, assets, selected landing pages and migration timestamps. If the account shows the current “Search terms and ad combinations” view, save its date range and filters. Google says the “AI Max” match-type filter may omit “Other search terms,” and a timestamp proves an implementation event, not incremental conversions. See Google’s reporting caveat.
Do not let URL automation contaminate the test
AI Max can use search-term matching, text customisation and final URL expansion. If final URL expansion is enabled, Google warns that pinned assets may not be used when a more relevant URL is selected. Google also documents possible 404s when a dynamic landing page does not work with the account’s tracking template. Sample the primary page, a deep page, a location page, a redirected page and a URL with tracking parameters before treating an AI Max change as a keyword-only test. Google’s AI Max Help page explains the URL and tracking-template risks.
Keep the landing-page offer, canonical, redirects, consent, form, analytics and tracking parameters comparable between control and treatment. If URLs, budget, conversion actions and keyword governance all change at once, label the result as a multi-variable change rather than attributing a movement to prioritisation.
Measurement and rollback
Use a receipt that separates implementation facts from outcomes. The implementation section should contain the migration timestamp, setting state, keyword objects, exact-copy decision, controls and approvals. The outcome section should contain the predeclared period, spend, clicks, conversions, qualified rate and revenue definitions. A modelled scenario or platform conversion is not proof of incremental or qualified business value.
Set a stop condition before launch: tracking loss, unexpected query mix, wrong landing page, brand-safety issue, qualified-rate deterioration, budget breach or material error. Assign a rollback owner and keep the previous export. If the account lacks a holdout or a clean comparison, lower confidence rather than turning a directional observation into a causal claim.
What this means for marketers
The next task is an account-level inventory and query-governance check. Teams that relied on campaign-level broad match to give a broad keyword exact-like priority should identify those terms and decide whether exact-match copies are worth the added governance. Teams that prefer the ordinary AI Max priority can document that choice and focus on eligibility, query review, brand controls and landing-page integrity.
Keep the broader AI for Google Ads guide as the context owner, and use the target bidding changes checklist when bidding is part of the test boundary. AI Brief’s language list is separate from Search campaign language targeting; see the Google Ads language-targeting guide for those rules. Technical teams can use the Google Ads API v25.1 article as adjacent implementation context, not as proof that a specific account’s migration fields were queried.
For measurement after the campaign change, the Search Console AI performance-report owner covers organic AI visibility and should not be mixed into a paid-search attribution claim. Integration governance is covered separately in the Google Ads developer-policy update. These links are context, not evidence that those systems caused an Ads result.
