Whose Page Did You Count? Counting-Dependence and a Null Result in Measuring Attention to an AI Incident
Fatimah Emad Eldin
How much attention did an AI incident get? The answer depends on a choice nobody states: which page you count. Re-measuring the July 2026 OpenAI/Hugging Face intrusion, the published finding that June’s export-control ban drew roughly seven times more attention inverts once the page that absorbed the attention is counted instead of the developer’s: the breached party’s page outdrew every June comparator tested, in both raw and baseline- normalised units. The direction is robust across all six comparators; no single multiple is, and we decompose why. Second, a season-matched placebo null puts the 30-day response of AI-risk concept pages at the 53.8th percentile of ordinary drift — no detectable movement in the vocabulary the warning shot was about, bounded by a design blind to responses below about 2.2× drift. Third, a cross-channel decay comparison that looks headline-grade does not survive its null: the incident’s discussion thread sits at the 33rd percentile of thirty comparable front-page threads, so that half-life measures the platform and not the event. Code, cached fixtures and a verify.py that recomputes every number accompany the report.
No reviews are available yet
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Whose Page Did You Count? Counting-Dependence and a Null Result in Measuring Attention to an AI Incident
},
author={
Fatimah Emad Eldin
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


