One page per demand channel. The question is never "is there AI in this channel"; it is whether the entity that owns the customer's attention has a business reason to keep a human lane open, and enforces it. Research actual policy pages and actual enforcement, not the platform's marketing.
Reference: the pattern as researched
Channel
Who polices the flood
Human lane
Etsy search
Disclosure rule, unenforced
Distinctive makers only
Google organic search
No; the engine absorbs the answer
Barely any
YouTube
Inauthentic-content monetization ban
Held, deliberately
Amazon KDP
Upload caps plus AI disclosure
Held, deliberately
Your channel
Business idea / demand channel researched
Who is the gatekeeper (platform, search engine, referral network, own list)?
Gatekeeper's AI-content or disclosure policy page (URL)
Date policy page read
Evidence the policy is enforced or ignored (dated notes)
Date
What I saw (search results, enforcement notices, seller reports, examples of machine supply ranking)
Enforced / ignored
☐ / ☐
☐ / ☐
☐ / ☐
☐ / ☐
Verdict
Policed (human lane held deliberately) → +1 on the demand-gate question
☐
Unpoliced (flood let in, or rule unenforced) → +2
☐
Replaced (the engine absorbs the answer) → +2
☐
Not a platform (referrals, own list, humans are the point) → −1
☐
Platform goodwill is not a contract. YouTube, Amazon, and TikTok police slop because it suits them this year. If their incentive flips, your protection flips with it. Any business whose entire defense is "the platform enforces quality" should carry a re-score trigger: platform policy change, and the trigger list comes later in the guide.
Re-score trigger set for this platform's policy pages
☐ Set, next check:
Graduation plan: move demand behind a gate you own (direct relationship, email list, referral loop, phone number in a hundred neighbors' contacts)