Our practices for covering AI partnerships have shifted since we started this beat, and the specific changes are worth naming.
We started following up on old partnership announcements
We didn't consistently report on whether past partnerships actually developed into something substantive. We now try to revisit significant past announcements to report what actually happened.
We got more careful with announcement-day language
Early coverage sometimes echoed a partnership's own framing of its expected significance. We now try to describe announcements more neutrally, reserving stronger language for once there's actual evidence of impact.
We stopped assuming partnership announcements imply deep integration
We used to sometimes imply more operational depth than an announcement actually supported. We're now more careful to describe exactly what's been announced, not what it might eventually become.
Why this evolution matters
Partnership announcements are made at the point of least available evidence, and we think being more disciplined about description and more consistent about follow-up serves readers better than optimistic same-day framing.