Google reviews its own ranking systems on its own schedule, not yours.

What Google's update log actually shows

Google Search Central publishes a dated log of ranking system updates, which is the primary source this page relies on instead of any third-party prediction. That log has included changes affecting how page experience and Core Web Vitals are measured or weighted, on Google's own schedule.

This page does not predict when the next relevant update will land, that isn't knowable in advance from outside Google, but the pattern of periodic review is itself well documented and worth planning around.

What this means for a dealership that already tested its speed

A field-data measurement taken today reflects today's thresholds and today's measurement method. Lab data and field data measure different things already, and both can be affected if Google revises a threshold or a metric definition later. Treating a past passing result as permanent, instead of rechecking it periodically against current guidance, is the specific mistake this page addresses.

Why this is different from an ordinary speed regression

An ordinary speed regression has a cause on the website's own side, a new script, a heavier image, a slower server response, and a fix that addresses that specific cause. A page-experience signal changing because of a Google-side review has no equivalent on-site cause to find, because nothing on the site actually changed. Looking for a site-side root cause that does not exist wastes time that would be better spent confirming what the current guidance actually says.

This is also why a dealership working with any website vendor, including this one, benefits from asking specifically how page-experience compliance is monitored on an ongoing basis, instead of assuming a one-time pass at launch remains valid indefinitely.

A reasonable way to stay current

Periodic rechecking against Google's own published guidance, instead of a single measurement trusted indefinitely, is the practical response to a review process that happens on Google's own schedule instead of a predictable one.

• Recheck field and lab data periodically, not only when a problem is suspected
• Compare current results against Google's currently published thresholds, not a remembered number
• Note the date of each check, so a later comparison has something to measure against
• Treat a passing result as current as of that date, not as a permanent status

This is a scheduling question, not a tooling question

As with the other windows on the dealership calendar, the response here is a habit instead of a purchase: recheck current field and lab data against Google's current guidance on a schedule, instead of treating one passing measurement as settled indefinitely against a review process that runs on Google's own timeline.

What this means for third-party tools specifically

A page-experience review is a measurement of the assembled page a shopper actually receives, not of any single vendor's product in isolation. When third-party scripts, instead of the platform, are already the larger share of a dealership site's loading time, a revised threshold has more room to change the outcome for that site than for one running fewer competing tools.

That is a reason to know the current tool stack and its combined effect, not a reason to distrust any individual vendor: the review measures the whole page, and the whole page is what changes if a threshold moves.