A technician is asked to add a new metric to the weekly wireless report specifically to help track whether patients and visitors are having a good experience on the guest network, beyond just knowing whether access points are online. Which additional metric best serves that specific goal?

The scenario specifically asks for a metric beyond basic reachability, aimed at capturing experience, so a client-experience quality measure — such as connection success rate, average time to associate and get online, or similar experience-focused indicators — is the metric built for that purpose, since it reflects what a guest actually goes through rather than just whether the infrastructure is technically up. Access point reachability from the monitoring platform's point of view only confirms the device is answering management traffic; it says nothing about whether guest devices are successfully connecting, staying connected, or getting a usable experience, which is exactly the gap this new metric is meant to close. The number of switch ports configured for the guest VLAN is a static configuration detail about network design, unrelated to how well any actual guest session performs. The monitoring platform's remaining storage space is an entirely internal, administrative detail about the monitoring tool itself and has no bearing on guest experience whatsoever. The broader point for this domain is that infrastructure-health metrics and user-experience metrics answer different questions, and a mature reporting practice tracks both rather than assuming device uptime is a stand-in for a good guest experience. A sound way to validate a new experience metric before trusting it is to compare it for a week against actual guest help-desk complaint volume and see whether the two move together.