The Capability–Adoption Gap: A Research Mini-Series

API Access for Researchers — All data and models from this series are available via the API Gateway. Get your API key →

Enterprise transformation — bridging the gap between capability and adoption

Research Mini-Series

The Capability–Adoption Gap: Why AI Deployment Lags AI Capability

Oleh Ivchenko¹

¹ Odesa National Polytechnic University (ONPU)

Type: Research Mini-Series
Status: Ongoing · 78 articles · 2026–present
Tool: AI Adoption Gap Monitor

78 Articles · ONGOING · 2026–Present

Abstract

AI systems can perform a wide range of tasks at or above human capability levels, yet deployment lags far behind demonstrated capability — a gap that varies dramatically by sector, organizational readiness, and barrier type. This mini-series systematically maps this gap, distinguishing three distinct mechanisms: adoption lag (organizational delay despite clear economic case), quality threshold barriers (output insufficient for cost-effective deployment), and organizational friction (workflow, liability, or institutional constraints). Each mechanism implies different closure timelines and policy interventions. Drawing on the Anthropic Economic Index baseline, this series examines how adoption velocity — not gap size — predicts labor market disruption, and provides real-time monitoring tools for tracking coverage signals across occupational categories.

Idea and Motivation

The Anthropic Economic Index (Massenkoff & McCrory, 2026) asked a question distinct from typical AI capability research: what tasks are people actually using AI for, versus what could theoretically be automated? The answer revealed a structural chasm — ranging from 2.8× in computer science to 8.0× in healthcare support — between measured theoretical exposure and observed coverage.

But gap size alone is a misleading metric. A gap of 8× closing rapidly signals a different economic timeline than an identical gap that remains static for a decade. The series begins with this insight: the critical variable is not the gap’s magnitude today, but its closure velocity and the organizational mechanisms that govern that velocity.

Goal

The series aims to build a diagnostic framework for understanding adoption barriers sector-by-sector, and to establish a real-time monitoring system for adoption velocity signals. The goal is not to predict when gaps will close, but to make the closure mechanisms visible: which barriers are primarily technical (solvable by better models), which are procedural (solvable by better processes), and which are structural (requiring institutional change that outpaces technology development).

Scope

The series covers six major occupational categories drawn from the Anthropic Economic Index baseline dataset: Computer & Mathematical (94% theoretical exposure, 33% observed coverage), Office & Administrative (90% vs 25%), Business & Financial (85% vs 20%), Legal (80% vs 15%), Healthcare Support (40% vs 5%), and Construction (15% vs 2%). Each occupational category is examined for its dominant adoption barrier and historical closure rates estimated from available labor market data.

Table 1. Adoption gap baseline: theoretical exposure vs. observed coverage
Occupational Category	Theoretical Exposure	Observed Coverage	Gap Ratio	Dominant Barrier Type
Computer & Math	94%	33%	2.8×	Adoption lag
Office & Admin	90%	25%	3.6×	Adoption lag + Friction
Business & Financial	85%	20%	4.3×	Organizational friction
Legal	80%	15%	5.3×	Liability friction
Healthcare Support	40%	5%	8.0×	Quality threshold
Construction	15%	2%	7.5×	Physical embodiment gap

Focus

The primary focus is on mechanisms rather than occupations. The series investigates three distinct adoption barriers. Adoption lag occurs when organizations recognize AI capability and economic feasibility but have not yet deployed due to procurement cycles, integration costs, and risk aversion — typically closing within 18–36 months. Quality threshold barriers arise when model output quality is insufficient for cost-effective deployment without heavy human review — typically a 2–5 year closure timeline dependent on model improvement rates. Organizational friction encompasses workflow integration challenges, legal liability concerns, regulatory uncertainty, and institutional inertia — typically persisting 5–15 years even as technological capability exists.

Limitations

Baseline data specificityAll articles ground analysis in the Anthropic Economic Index dataset, limiting generalisability beyond the measured occupational categories and U.S. labor market structure.

Velocity estimatesClosure rate projections rely on historical analogies from prior technology adoption cycles. Future adoption velocity may differ due to unprecedent scale and pace of AI capability improvements.

Measurement lagPublished labor market and hiring data contain 3–6 month delays. Real-time coverage gap signals from GitHub and arXiv are public proxies, not direct measures of enterprise adoption.

Counterfactual absenceThis series measures what is adopted. It does not measure AI capabilities that remain deliberately undeployed due to risk management, safety concerns, or regulatory choice.

Scientific Value

The series contributes three distinct insights. First, it operationalizes the concept of adoption velocity as distinct from capability performance — a metric essential for labor economics and technology policy but rarely isolated in AI research. Second, it documents the sector-specific institutional barriers to adoption, shifting focus from general “AI adoption” to context-specific mechanisms with different policy interventions. Third, it establishes the AI Adoption Gap Monitor as an operational research tool for tracking adoption signals in real-time from public labor market, developer activity, and scientific publication data streams.

Resources

Status

Ongoing. 78 articles published as of March 2026. The series is actively expanding with new sector analyses, updated adoption velocity calculations, and enhancements to the real-time monitoring dashboard. New articles published weekly as adoption data streams and organizational case studies are completed.

Contribution Opportunities

Researchers and practitioners are invited to contribute in the following directions:

Sector-specific case studies: Document adoption barriers and closure mechanisms in your occupational domain. Contribute data on organizational decision-making timelines and integration costs.
Adoption velocity models: Develop forecasting models for gap closure rates using historical technology adoption curves and current capability trajectory estimates.
Real-time signal development: Propose new data streams (hiring patterns, GitHub commits, API usage, patent filings) that serve as leading indicators of adoption velocity.
Barrier characterization: Document organizational, regulatory, and technical friction mechanisms in regulated sectors (healthcare, finance, legal) where adoption lags are largest.
Dashboard extension: The AI Adoption Gap Monitor is open to contribution. Propose new metrics, visualizations, or occupational categories for monitoring.

Published Articles

Research Mini-Series · 11 published

By Oleh Ivchenko

Gap analysis is based on publicly available data. Projections are model estimates for research purposes only.

All Articles

AI is Threatening Science Jobs — But Not the Ones You'd Expect DOI 5/10 55stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	100%	✓	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	100%	✓	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	0%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	100%	✓	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	100%	✓	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	0%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	1 refs	○	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	999	✗	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 999
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18723765
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	0%	✗	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 0%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	0	○	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 0
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (71 × 60%) + Required (2/5 × 30%) + Optional (0/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Feb 21, 2026 · 5 min read

Ukraine's AI Duality: World Leader in Battlefield Systems, Lagging in Civil Adoption DOI 7/10 42stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	77%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	8%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	15%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	15%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	62%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	13 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	3,877	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 3,877
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18896514
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	8%	✗	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 8%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (35 × 60%) + Required (3/5 × 30%) + Optional (1/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Mar 7, 2026 · 19 min read

The Coverage Gap: What AI Can Do vs. What We Actually Use It For DOI 9/10 50stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	75%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	63%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	38%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	25%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	63%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	63%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	8 refs	○	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	1,613	✗	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 1,613
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18911661
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	14%	✗	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 14%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (59 × 60%) + Required (2/5 × 30%) + Optional (1/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Mar 8, 2026 · 8 min read

The 8× Gap: Why Healthcare AI Will Never Reach Its Theoretical Ceiling (And What That Means for Every Other High-Stakes Industry) DOI 9/10 72stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	25%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	100%	✓	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	75%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	25%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	50%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	75%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	100%	✓	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	4 refs	○	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,114	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,114
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18964576
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	67%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 67%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (75 × 60%) + Required (4/5 × 30%) + Optional (1/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Mar 11, 2026 · 11 min read

The Monitor Shows What Nobody Wants to See: AI Is Here, It Is Eating Jobs, and We Can Only Watch DOI 8/10 54stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	80%	✓	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	40%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	60%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	40%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	100%	✓	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	5 refs	○	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,911	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,911
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18993208
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	33%	✗	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 33%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (55 × 60%) + Required (3/5 × 30%) + Optional (1/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Mar 13, 2026 · 15 min read

Adoption Friction Taxonomy: Categorizing the Barriers Between AI Capability and Enterprise Deployment DOI 10/10 54stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	54%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	15%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	100%	✓	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	38%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	77%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	13 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,103	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,103
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19219179
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	55%	✗	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 55%
[c]	Data Charts	4	✓	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 4
[g]	Code	—	○	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (51 × 60%) + Required (3/5 × 30%) + Optional (2/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Mar 25, 2026 · 11 min read

All-You-Can-Eat Agentic AI: The Economics of Unlimited Licensing in an Era of Non-Deterministic Costs DOI 4/10 62stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	11%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	58%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	42%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	11%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	53%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	42%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	79%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	19 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,380	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,380
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19371258
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	100%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 100%
[c]	Data Charts	4	✓	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 4
[g]	Code	✓	✓	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (51 × 60%) + Required (4/5 × 30%) + Optional (3/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Apr 1, 2026 · 12 min read

The Training Gap: When AI Capability Outpaces Workforce Readiness DOI 3/10 50stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	50%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	13%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	19%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	25%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	75%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	16 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,026	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,026
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19420224
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	92%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 92%
[c]	Data Charts	3	✓	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 3
[g]	Code	✓	✓	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (31 × 60%) + Required (4/5 × 30%) + Optional (3/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Apr 4, 2026 · 10 min read

Measuring Adoption Velocity: Metrics and Benchmarks Across Industries DOI 4/10 58stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	60%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	33%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	33%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	40%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	67%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	15 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,114	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,114
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19423051
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	83%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 83%
[c]	Data Charts	4	✓	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 4
[g]	Code	✓	✓	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	3	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 3
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (44 × 60%) + Required (4/5 × 30%) + Optional (3/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Apr 4, 2026 · 11 min read

Closing the Gap: Evidence-Based Strategies That Actually Work 3/10 67stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	33%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	100%	✓	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	67%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	67%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	67%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	100%	✓	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	3 refs	○	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	2,575	✓	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 2,575
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✗	✗	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	100%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 100%
[c]	Data Charts	2	✓	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 2
[g]	Code	✓	✓	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	0	○	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 0
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (74 × 60%) + Required (3/5 × 30%) + Optional (2/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Apr 8, 2026 · 13 min read

The Second-Order Gap: When Adopted AI Creates New Capability Gaps DOI 4/10 40stabilfr·wdophcgmx

Badge	Metric	Value	Status	Description
[s]	Reviewed Sources	0%	○	≥80% from editorially reviewed sources
[t]	Trusted	52%	○	≥80% from verified, high-quality sources
[a]	DOI	19%	○	≥80% have a Digital Object Identifier
[b]	CrossRef	0%	○	≥80% indexed in CrossRef
[i]	Indexed	0%	○	≥80% have metadata indexed
[l]	Academic	24%	○	≥80% from journals/conferences/preprints
[f]	Free Access	67%	○	≥80% are freely accessible
[r]	References	21 refs	✓	Minimum 10 references required
[w]	Words [REQ]	997	✗	Minimum 2,000 words for a full research article. Current: 997
[d]	DOI [REQ]	✓	✓	Zenodo DOI registered for persistent citation. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19556491
[o]	ORCID [REQ]	✓	✓	Author ORCID verified for academic identity
[p]	Peer Reviewed [REQ]	—	✗	Peer reviewed by an assigned reviewer
[h]	Freshness [REQ]	87%	✓	≥60% of references from 2025–2026. Current: 87%
[c]	Data Charts	0	○	Original data charts from reproducible analysis (min 2). Current: 0
[g]	Code	✓	✓	Source code available on GitHub
[m]	Diagrams	2	✓	Mermaid architecture/flow diagrams. Current: 2
[x]	Cited by	0	○	Referenced by 0 other hub article(s)

Score = Ref Trust (29 × 60%) + Required (3/5 × 30%) + Optional (2/4 × 10%)

Research Mini-Series · Apr 13, 2026 · 5 min read

11 published1,232 total views119 min total readingFeb 2026 – Apr 2026 published