Read the rebuilt weekly scorecard →
What changed
The earlier reports mixed incomplete collection with weak indicators. Missing observations could become zero scores. Vendor mentions, general website widgets and crawler rules could contribute points without establishing an AI deployment. Changes in the observation window could look like changes in a business.
Historical numerical outputs remain available inside each edition, clearly labeled. The old tiers and claims that a company’s activity was “cooling” or “under wraps” have been removed. Those conclusions were not established by the evidence shown.
What counts as evidence
A usable record identifies the business, the source, the date, the specific claim and the scope of that claim. An announcement, a hiring signal, a pilot and a deployed product are different observations. A company’s own claim should remain attributed unless independently corroborated.
A global product announcement can be relevant to a company with Kansas City ties. It does not, by itself, establish use inside its Kansas City operations. Parent companies, subsidiaries and local facilities need explicit scope.
What a weekly comparison needs
Each Monday edition records a fresh snapshot of its registered official sources. The preceding Monday–Sunday window identifies newly dated source events; it does not pretend that a weekly scan observed every day. The method, source plan and registry are versioned. Missing or failed reads remain unknown.
Established deployment evidence should not disappear simply because a seven-day news window moved on. Weekly changes should identify new, corrected, expired or withdrawn evidence. A change in the collector or scoring method is not a change in a company.
Dates and the visual key
Annual reports sometimes establish only a year. Those sources retain year-only precision and never count as a newly dated weekly event. Green marks a qualifying reviewed claim; blue marks a checked source set without a qualifying claim; amber marks incomplete coverage; gray marks a retained historical entry excluded for identity, scope, closure or duplication. Website charts and downloadable Monday graphics use the same frozen edition.
When a rank is justified
The rebuilt scorecard orders the strongest reviewed public claim within the same scope: reported availability or deployment, then pilot or beta, then announcement. Ties stay tied; independent outcome evidence can break a tie. A lone qualifying entry is identified as such. This ordinal comparison is not a calibrated adoption index, and an old deployment report is not proof that the system is still in use.
Every edition lists the full registry, including incomplete source checks, unresolved identities, duplicate entries and material awaiting review. No qualifying evidence means unknown, not zero adoption. There is no paid membership or signal-log subscription. You can contact TKC about the scorecard or browse the corrected archive.
What the collector checks
The current source plan reads registered official entry pages, previously reviewed source pages, and up to three directly linked AI-related pages per organization. It respects access restrictions and retains a receipt for each attempt. This is bounded official-source discovery, not an exhaustive web search.
New material enters an editorial review queue. A keyword or a successful page read cannot earn a rank. Reviewed claims must retain their source date, entity, scope and supporting context. The weekly run rechecks that exact context; changed, withdrawn or explicitly expired claims are held. Repeated mentions of the same event are counted once.
How editorial corrections are handled
Revised articles retain their original address and publication date. The editorial note identifies the update; the original source byline does not imply that the author personally wrote every revision. The corrections are stored upstream and protected from routine sync overwrites. Revised copy is tied to its reviewed source; a later source change triggers review. New scorecards use the TKC Editorial byline and identify AI-assisted review explicitly.
The financial and family-learning articles have been rewritten to present practical exercises and explicit scenarios. They no longer tell readers to replace retirement savings or education with speculative concepts. The Solve Everything essay itself describes its timelines as theoretical; the earlier articles treated too much of that scenario as established fact.
For financial education, Investor.gov explains why goals, time horizon and risk matter. A technology thesis is not evidence that a particular investment will appreciate.
Further reading
The OECD handbook on composite indicators covers the choices behind an index, including missing data, weighting and robustness. A convincing graphic cannot substitute for those decisions.