The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2528
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T07:48:34.498486Z
status: published
lens: trace
sector: business
headline: Algorithmic Provenance: When and Why Consumers Discount Products Made With AI ‐Involved Processes
dek: ABSTRACT Firms increasingly incorporate generative and non‐generative artificial intelligence (AI) into product design, formulation, and production, and they face a disclosure question: how should they describe the role of AI to consumers? Across six studies, including analysis of 1800 marketplace listings and five pre‐registered experiments (total experimental N = 2760), we introduce and test a 2‐by‐2 framework of algorithmic provenance defined by the AI's role (agentic vs. assistive) and its visibility in the…
gain_title: In pre-registered experiments, framing a product's origin around human creative intent cut the penalty for AI-as-designer products by about half.
problem_title: In six studies including five experiments with 2,760 participants, products described as designed by AI rated lower on attitude, quality, purchase intent and willingness to pay than products where AI assisted a human designer.
trace_subject: Consumer discounting of products made with agentic AI involvement
gain_reading: In pre-registered experiments, framing a product's origin around human creative intent cut the penalty for AI-as-designer products by about half.
gain_evidence: narrows the agentic penalty by approximately half
problem_reading: In six studies including five experiments with 2,760 participants, products described as designed by AI rated lower on attitude, quality, purchase intent and willingness to pay than products where AI assisted a human designer.
problem_evidence: Agentic AI involvement (AI as designer) reduces consumer product attitudes, perceived quality, purchase intentions, and willingness to pay relative to assistive AI involvement
quick_read: Researchers report that identical products are judged differently depending on how AI was involved in making them. Across six studies, including an analysis of 1,800 marketplace listings and five pre-registered experiments with 2,760 participants, products where AI acted as the designer scored lower on attitudes, perceived quality, purchase intentions and willingness to pay than products where AI served as a tool for a human designer.

The penalty grew when AI involvement was visible in the final product, was larger for expressive products than functional ones, and was larger among consumers primed to see themselves as independent. The authors link it partly to a new measure, perceived authenticity of creative intention: whether people infer a human pursued a genuine creative vision.

A disclosure approach called creative-intent framing narrowed the penalty by roughly half, also through the authenticity mechanism. The authors present it as a scalable disclosure design principle for marketers, though the paper reports experimental consumer responses rather than real sales outcomes.
limitation: The mitigation narrowed the agentic penalty by approximately half rather than eliminating it, and the effects were only partially mediated by perceived authenticity.
tag: Dual reading
key_points: The work combined an analysis of 1,800 marketplace listings with five pre-registered experiments totalling 2,760 participants. | It sorts AI involvement into a 2-by-2 framework: agentic versus assistive role, and visible versus invisible in the final product. | AI-as-designer products scored lower than AI-as-tool products on attitudes, perceived quality, purchase intentions and willingness to pay. | The penalty was amplified when AI involvement was visible in the final product. | The effect was larger for expressive than for functional product categories. | It was also larger among consumers primed to hold an independent self-construal. | Perceived authenticity of creative intention partially mediated the responses. | Creative-intent framing cut the agentic penalty by approximately half.
rundown: The study tests a 2-by-2 taxonomy it calls algorithmic provenance. One axis is whether AI acted as an agent (the designer) or an assistant (a tool for a human designer); the other is whether AI involvement is visible or invisible in the finished product. Identical products were evaluated differently depending on their place in that grid.

The main finding is an agentic penalty: when AI is the designer, consumers report lower product attitudes, quality ratings, purchase intentions and willingness to pay than when it assists a human. Visibility of AI in the final product made the penalty larger.

Authors identify perceived authenticity of creative intention as a partial mediator, capturing whether consumers infer a human creator pursued a genuine creative vision. The penalty was larger for expressive than functional products and among consumers primed with independent self-construal.

Creative-intent framing, a disclosure approach marketers could scale, reduced the penalty by about half through the same authenticity mechanism. The authors say the results refine theories of algorithmic aversion and give marketers a disclosure design principle.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Consumer Behaviour | https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70262 | 2026-10-16
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

5fd9a4bb0cf9605c9f76d062b49a892f16bde8ea62175a18308738da34bb30ff

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000