Verifiable

Every claim, sourced.

We’re the company that argues for verifiability. So here’s ours.

Three layers, kept separate: empirical claims (prevalence, adoption, survey shares) carry source, date, and sample size; ethical and pastoral conclusions draw on separate reasoning; advocacyframing (Movemental’s thesis, formation-before-deployment) is labeled as argument, not as survey fact. Percentages from different studies are not interchangeable — see the findings page for paired comparisons only.

For Movemental’s full source-quality rubric (evidence vs. formation language, question router, maintenance cadence), see authoritative-sources-ai-nonprofits-faith-formation in the graded-high research corpus (maintainer reference, not a public reader).

[1]

Virtuous & Fundraising.AI — The 2026 Nonprofit AI Adoption Report

Virtuous · 2026 · n=346

View92% use AI in some form; only 7% report major organizational capability improvements; 47% have no governance policy.[2]

Barna & Pushpay — State of Church Tech 2026

Barna / Pushpay · 2026 · n=1,306

View60% of church leaders use AI monthly; only 5% of churches have an established AI policy.[3]

McKinsey — The State of AI in 2025

McKinsey · 2025 · n=1,993

View88% use AI in at least one function; 6% qualify as high performers; 55% of high performers redesigned workflows.[4]

BCG — The Widening AI Value Gap (Build for the Future 2025)

BCG · 2025 · n=1,250

View60% generate no material value from AI; 5% qualify as future-built with AI-first operating models.[5]

MIT NANDA — The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025

MIT NANDA · 2025

ViewRoughly 95% of corporate gen-AI pilots fail meaningful financial returns — integration and governance, not model quality, drive outcomes.[6]

Lifeway Research — Pastors' Views on Artificial Intelligence

Lifeway · 2025 field / 2026 release · n=1,003 pastors

View42% of pastors use AI for ministry; 62% concerned about non-disclosure of AI involvement.[7]

Lifeway Research — Churchgoers and AI in Sermon Preparation

Lifeway · 2026 · n=1,200 churchgoers

View43% disagree with their pastor using AI for sermon preparation (24% strongly).[8]

Stanford HAI — AI Index 2026

Stanford HAI · 2026

ViewDocuments broad organizational uptake with uneven depth — transformation lags adoption.[9]

Dell'Anna et al. — Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier

HBS / MIT / BCG · 2023

ViewLarge gains inside the frontier (+12% tasks, 25% faster); 19 points less accurate on one outside-frontier task.[10]

Pew Research Center — Artificial Intelligence

Pew · ongoing

ViewGold-standard US public opinion; use for disclosure reactions and trust trends, not vendor ROI.[11]

NIST — AI Risk Management Framework

NIST · 2023+

ViewVoluntary US baseline for AI risk management; widely referenced by boards and CIOs.[12]

Forvis Mazars — AI Governance for Nonprofit Boards

Forvis Mazars · 2026

ViewAI governance as a fiduciary issue — Care, Loyalty, and Obedience extend to technological oversight.[13]

TechSoup & Tapp Network — State of AI in Nonprofits 2025

TechSoup · 2025 · n=1,321

View85.6% exploring AI; 24% with formal strategy; larger orgs adopt at roughly twice the rate of smaller ones.[14]

FBI IC3 — Internet Crime Complaint Center (AI-enabled fraud)

FBI · 2025

View$893M in AI-attributed losses in 2025; voice-cloning fraud up sharply — sector underestimates exposure.[15]

NPR — Clergy grapple with the ethics of using AI to write sermons

NPR / Barna · 2025

View12% comfortable with AI-written sermons; 43% see merit for preparation and research.[16]

NTEN — 2025 Data Empowerment Report

NTEN · 2025 · n=220+

ViewAI data policies among the least implemented governance items as tool adoption rises.[17]

Barna & Gloo — State of the Church 2026 (AI & spiritual authority)

Barna / Gloo · 2026 · n=1,514

ViewPublic attitudes on AI and spiritual authority — pair with Lifeway pastor data for leader/congregation gap.[18]

Edelman Trust Barometer 2025 — AI flash poll

Edelman · 2025

ViewUneven comfort with corporate AI use; geographic divergence in AI trust.[19]

Authors Guild — 2023 Author Income Survey

Authors Guild · 2023 · n=5,699 · income year 2022

ViewMedian book income $10,000 for full-time authors; $2,000 for whole sample including part-time; half of full-time authors below minimum wage on all writing work.[20]

Substack — How much does Substack cost?

Substack Support · fee documentation

View10% platform fee on paid subscriptions plus Stripe processing (2.9% + $0.30) and 0.7% recurring billing on renewals as of July 2024.[21]

Pew — U.S. streaming and subscription habits

Pew · 2025

View83% of U.S. adults use streaming services — reminder that attention and wallet share are contested even when creator tools are cheap.[22]

Google — Search Quality Rater Guidelines

Google · EEAT reference · updated periodically

ViewPrimary reference for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — raters align systems, not hand-rank pages.[23]

Aggarwal et al. — GEO: Generative Engine Optimization

Princeton / arXiv · 2023 · KDD 2024

ViewIntroduces GEO framing and benchmark; reports material but bounded improvements with domain dependence — not a settled spec from Google or OpenAI.[24]

Reuters Institute — Digital News Report 2025

Reuters · 2025 · global sample

View40% overall trust in news (stable three years); 58% globally worry about true vs false online (73% U.S.); AI expected to make news cheaper but less trustworthy.[25]

Stanford HAI — Labeling AI-Generated Content May Not Change Its Persuasiveness

Stanford HAI · policy brief

ViewLabels can shift attribution without reliably reducing persuasion for some message types — disclosure alone is insufficient for credibility protection.[26]

Pew — Reactions to learning AI was involved in content

Pew · Sep 2025 · n=5,023 · field Jun 9–15

View71% would view a political candidate less favorably if AI helped write a speech they liked; 56% negative for a news article — post-hoc disclosure matters.[27]

Hu et al. — Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models

Nature Machine Intelligence · 2023

ViewSurvey of PEFT methods (LoRA, adapters); tenant-specific adaptation is feasible but entangled with base-model updates and data rights.[28]

Ippolito et al. — Automatic detection of generated text

ACL · 2020

ViewHuman-likeness and machine detectability are not aligned — optimizing for plausibility can diverge from statistical consistency.[29]

COPE — Authorship and AI tools

COPE · position statement

ViewAI cannot be an author; disclosure required; humans accountable for every line.[30]

Dwivedi et al. — So what if ChatGPT wrote it?

International Journal of Information Management · 2023

ViewChatGPT-era authorship stock-take — governance, accountability, and epistemic risk remain open; voice preservation not solved.[31]

OpenAI — Introducing ChatGPT

OpenAI · Nov 2022

ViewPublic launch 30 November 2022 — fair marker for how recent lived generative-AI practice is at scale.[32]

BCG — Generative AI and knowledge workers (Sept 2024)

BCG · 2024

ViewFollow-on experiments with consultants — gains on some tasks, failure modes when junior staff use AI without senior verification.[33]

Fernandes et al. — AI-assisted reasoning and calibration

Computers in Human Behavior · 2026

ViewAI-assisted work can improve performance while worsening calibration — overconfidence sometimes higher among users with greater AI literacy.[34]

Ahrefs — What percentage of new content is AI-generated?

Ahrefs · Apr 2025 · 900k pages

View74.2% of newly detected English pages contained some AI-flagged content; 2.5% pure AI, 25.8% pure human — detector-dependent, not peer-reviewed.[35]

Cooke et al. — As Good As A Coin Toss

CACM · 2025 · ~1,300 participants

ViewRealistic multimodal synthetic stimuli — mean human discrimination accuracy near chance (~50%); do not rely on unaided perception alone.

Sources current as of mid-2026. Verify against each provider before relying on them.