Attack Surface Management (ASM) tools aim to lower security risks but often fall short, delivering an overload of information rather than tangible safety improvements. Security teams monitor increasing asset counts and alerts, creating an illusion of progress. However, when asked if these efforts actually reduce incidents, the answer is frequently ambiguous. The primary issue lies in measuring return on investment (ROI) through asset visibility rather than meaningful risk reduction. Most ASM programs emphasize asset discovery—identifying domains, IPs, and cloud resources. While these metrics reflect growing coverage, they don't indicate whether the organization is genuinely safer. This focus leads to alert fatigue and unresolved asset backlogs, where teams are busy but not necessarily effective. The article highlights three critical outcome metrics: Mean Time to Asset Ownership, which gauges how quickly assets are assigned clear ownership; Reduction in Unauthenticated, State-Changing Endpoints, which assesses the number of risky entry points; and Time to Decommission After Ownership Loss, indicating how quickly abandoned assets are retired. To improve ASM effectiveness, organizations should shift their focus from asset counts to how quickly and effectively they handle risk exposure. Making asset visibility accessible across teams fosters collaboration and speeds up resolution. The article suggests that measuring outcomes rather than mere discovery is essential for proving ASM value, emphasizing the need for metrics that reveal whether exposure is genuinely shrinking over time.