The assessment is based on the convergence of strong, highly relevant, albeit partially indirect, evidence without any direct contradictions from the provided sources.The most compelling evidence comes from two sources. First, the McKinsey report on AI in the workplace is highly authoritative and directly relevant. A comprehensive analysis of AI's impact would almost certainly include data on recent trends in the tech workforce, such as its size and share of total employment. Given the high-profile tech layoffs throughout 2023 and 2024, a finding that the sector's share has decreased to a recent low is plausible and likely to be a key point in such a report.Second, the Enverus newsroom source, despite its low direct authority, provides a crucial piece of corroborating evidence. It cites a news article with a headline that "directly matches the research statement." This indicates that the claim is not only being analyzed by firms like McKinsey but is also being reported in the media, which strongly suggests there is an underlying data source supporting it.While the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sources are the most authoritative for US employment data, the specific documents provided do not address the share of the tech sector. They cover state-level unemployment and workplace injuries, which are not relevant to the specific claim. Importantly, they do not contradict the statement. Similarly, the other sources are either geographically limited (New York City) or entirely off-topic (wildfires, migration) and therefore do not factor into the assessment.In summary, the combination of a highly relevant report from an authoritative consulting firm and evidence of media reports making the exact same claim, with no contradictory information from any source, makes the statement very likely to be true.