Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
23 established claims - 5 refused by the grounding gate
Verdict
Interaction to Next Paint became a stable Core Web Vital on March 12, 2024, replacing First Input Delay; Chrome deprecated support for First Input Delay and gave developers until September 9, 2024 to transition. As of September 2, 2025, web.dev states that an INP at or below 200 milliseconds means good responsiveness, above 500 milliseconds means poor responsiveness, and above 200 milliseconds and at or below 500 milliseconds means needs improvement, measured at the 75th percentile of field page loads segmented across mobile and desktop. INP calculation ignores one highest interaction for every 50 interactions, and the final value is the longest interaction observed after ignoring outliers; hovering, zooming, and scrolling are not observed, and a page can return no INP value. A seobeni.com article dated June 4, 2026 asserts that Core Web Vitals act as a tiebreaker between pages otherwise equal in relevance and authority, not a multiplier that overrides content quality.
Written from the 23 established claims below, then checked against them. How that works.
Documented position17
What the operator of the system says in its own documentation.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that INP…
- is a stable Core Web Vital metric.
- assesses responsiveness using data from the Event Timing API.
1 quote from 1 source
Interaction to Next Paint (INP) is a stable Core Web Vital metric that assesses responsiveness using data from the Event Timing API.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that an INP below or at 200 milliseconds means a page has good responsiveness.
1 quote from 1 source
An INP below or at 200 milliseconds means a page has good responsiveness.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that an INP above 500 milliseconds means a page has poor responsiveness.
1 quote from 1 source
An INP above 500 milliseconds means a page has poor responsiveness.
The web.dev article 'Interaction to Next Paint (INP)' states that an INP above 200 milliseconds and below or at 500 milliseconds means a page's responsiveness needs improvement.
1 quote from 1 source
An INP above 200 milliseconds and below or at 500 milliseconds means a page's responsiveness needs improvement.
Interaction to Next Paint (INP) has a documented position that its good threshold is measured at the 75th percentile of page loads recorded in the field, segmented across mobile and desktop devices.
1 quote from 1 source
To ensure you're delivering user experiences with good responsiveness, a good threshold to measure is the 75th percentile of page loads recorded in the field, segmented across mobile and desktop devices:
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that INP calculation ignores one highest interaction for every 50 interactions.
1 quote from 1 source
To give a better measure of the actual responsiveness for pages with a high number of interactions, we ignore one highest interaction for every 50 interactions.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that the final INP value for a page…
- is the longest interaction observed.
- ignores outliers.
1 quote from 1 source
The final INP value is the longest interaction observed, ignoring outliers.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that hovering, zooming, and scrolling are not observed for the purposes of INP.
1 quote from 1 source
Users may also interact with the page in other ways, like hovering, zooming, or scrolling. These interactions are not observed for the purposes of INP.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that measuring INP in JavaScript requires taking the 98th percentile across all interactions on page unload.
1 quote from 1 source
To measure INP in JavaScript, you need to measure event timings for all interactions, and then take the 98th percentile across all these interactions on page unload.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that event entries below 104 milliseconds don't report by default using performance observers.
1 quote from 1 source
event entries below 104 milliseconds don't report by default using performance observers.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that First Input Delay only measured the input delay of the first interaction on a page.
1 quote from 1 source
While both are responsiveness metrics, FID only measured the input delay of the first interaction on a page.
The web.dev article 'Interaction to Next Paint (INP)' states that it is possible for a page to return no INP value.
1 quote from 1 source
It's possible for a page to return no INP value.
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that Chrome usage data shows 90% of a user's time on a page is spent after it loads.
1 quote from 1 source
Chrome usage data shows that 90% of a user's time on a page is spent after it loads
The web.dev article "Interaction to Next Paint (INP)" states that the…
- Event Timing API does not report event entries for interactions occurring within iframes.
- INP metric reports event entries for interactions occurring within iframes.
1 quote from 1 source
The API does not report event entries for interactions that occur within iframes but the metric does as they are part of the user experience of the page.
Changed on4
A dated change. This is where advice quietly stops being true.
A web.dev blog post announced that Interaction to Next Paint is…
- now a stable Core Web Vital metric.
- replacing First Input Delay.
1 quote from 1 source
Interaction to Next Paint is now a stable Core Web Vital metric, replacing First Input Delay.
A web.dev blog post stated that…
- developers would have until September 9, 2024 to transition over to INP.
- Chrome was officially deprecating support for First Input Delay.
1 quote from 1 source
Now that INP has replaced FID as a Core Web Vital metric, Chrome is officially deprecating support for FID. What this means is that Chrome tools will no longer guarantee FID availability and developers will have until September 9, 2024 to transition over to INP.
Echoed without a primary source2
Widely repeated in the field, but traceable only to other repetitions. Listed because knowing something is merely echoed is worth as much as knowing it is documented.
The seobeni.com article asserts, regarding Interaction to Next Paint (INP), that Core Web Vitals…
- act as a tiebreaker between pages that are otherwise equal in relevance and authority.
- are not a multiplier that overrides content quality.
1 quote from 1 source
Core Web Vitals are a confirmed Google ranking signal that measure three dimensions of page experience: loading speed (LCP), interactivity (INP), and visual stability (CLS). They act as a tiebreaker between pages that are otherwise equal in relevance and authority — not a multiplier that overrides content quality.
Refused5
Claims the research produced that the grounding gate would not accept, with its reason. They are here because a site that only shows what passed gives you no way to judge whether the gate does anything.
Show what was refused
The documented position of Interaction to Next Paint (INP) is that Google Search always seeks to show the most relevant content even if the page experience is sub-par.
Refused: The cited quote discusses page experience generally and never mentions INP, so attributing this position to INP is unsupported.
Unsupported: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
What it rested on
Google Search always seeks to show the most relevant content, even if the page experience is sub-par. But for many queries, there is lots of helpful content available. Having a great page experience can contribute to success in Search, in such cases.
Google's page-experience documentation states that Interaction to Next Paint (INP) is used by Google's ranking systems.
Refused: The cited quote says Core Web Vitals are used by ranking systems but never mentions Interaction to Next Paint (INP).
Unsupported: Interaction to Next Paint (INP) is used by Google's ranking systems
What it rested on
Core Web Vitals are used by our ranking systems. We recommend site owners achieve good Core Web Vitals for success with Search and to ensure a great user experience generally.
A corgenx.com article about Interaction to Next Paint (INP) asserts that Google has stated that Core Web Vitals (CWV) are used as a tiebreaker when two pages have similar relevance and content quality.
Refused: The quote is from a corgenx.com article but does not mention INP or indicate the article's topic is about INP.
Unsupported: about Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
What it rested on
Google has stated that CWV are used as a tiebreaker when two pages have similar relevance and content quality.
Google's page-experience documentation states that getting good Interaction to Next Paint (INP) results in reports like Search Console's Core Web Vitals report or third-party tools does not guarantee that pages will rank at the top of Google Search results.
Refused: The cited quote does not mention INP; it only refers to good results in Core Web Vitals reports or third-party tools.
Unsupported: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
What it rested on
Keep in mind that getting good results in reports like Search Console's Core Web Vitals report or third-party tools doesn't guarantee that your pages will rank at the top of Google Search results; there's more to great page experience than Core Web Vitals scores alone.
Google's page-experience documentation states that trying to get a perfect Core Web Vitals score, which includes Interaction to Next Paint (INP), just for SEO reasons may not be the best use of a site owner's time.
Refused: The quote says only 'these scores' and does not identify them as Core Web Vitals or mention INP.
Unsupported: Core Web Vitals score, which includes Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
What it rested on
These scores are meant to help you to improve your site for your users overall, and trying to get a perfect score just for SEO reasons may not be the best use of your time.