I gave you links to the actual ratings 2 pages ago.
And any one giving you an interpretation of the ratings is either regurgitating those exact same numbers or a liar.
Any one that says that the ratings went consistently up, and stayed up is also a liar, because they went inconsistently down and by year 7 hovered near a point where cancellation was a talking point, even though it was still 3 times what Enterprise had when it was cancelled.
You actually have to have a link to something that verifies your evidence exists, like a link to a pdf or web archive, rather than me trusting your hazy memory on faith because I have no idea what you've done to your brain over the last 20 years.
According to Hanania, Joseph (February 7, 1999). "Signoff: Intergalactic Generation Gap," The New York Times, Voyager's weekly viewer ratings increased by more than 60% after the addition of Jeri Ryan's Seven to the crew.
(Shiiit. You just cut and pasted from Wikipedia.)
The full quote from that article is
When Jeri Ryan joined the cast of ''Star Trek: Voyager'' in its third season, in the fall of 1997, ratings soared 60 percent. They have since remained up, though not at that lofty level, said Rick Berman, an executive producer of the show, UPN's flagship series, shown in New York at 9 on Wednesday nights on WWOR, Channel 9.
And I followed my link to the actual ratings and I verified that Scorpion part II had increased by %63 from Worst Case Scenario, which by the way had aired 4 months earlier and hardly comparative, considering how someone's life and tastes can change in four months, that Jeri Ryan was one variable out of thousands that could have deviated trends between May and September 1997.
Anyone could also say that That Scorpion Part two had Half the ratings of the Pilot, Caretaker, from 4 years earlier. Caretaker got a 13, and Scorpion part II for a 6.5...
Is this really a moment to be celebrating when 1/2 your audience has wandered off?