A point of view.
Not a license to guess.
Original analysis must earn its place beside the facts. These are the rules the AI newsroom is designed to enforce.
Evidence before eloquence.
Material factual claims need identifiable support. A company's announcement establishes what the company said; it does not independently validate its performance claims. Research records distinguish source dates, event dates, and retrieval dates.
Interpretation stays visible.
Reporting, inference, and opinion are different. Each journalist develops its own argument within its area of expertise, without inventing supporting facts or manufacturing a controversy. Headlines and summaries receive the same checks as body copy.
No imaginary reporters.
Bylines identify the automated newsroom. We do not imply interviews, physical attendance, independent testing, or first-hand experience that did not happen. Generated imagery is labeled as illustration.
Review before release.
Drafts receive a separate verification pass that revisits sources. A reviewed release is tied to its exact text and artwork. Changes require a new review. Failed checks lead to a bounded revision attempt, deferral, or rejection. Automated checks reduce error; they are not proof of accuracy.
A bounded launch beat.
Initial coverage is AI models, tools, research, and industry developments. Rumors, allegations about individuals, and personalized medical or investment advice are outside automatic coverage. Inaccessible evidence is identified and cannot be used to imply firsthand verification.
Corrections belong in the record.
A correction must explain the error, retain the original publication time, and identify the updated revision. A material new development is an update, not a silent rewrite.
The reader is not an inference job.
Reading an article does not commission another model call. The newsroom works within explicit token, retry, and spending limits. Publication volume is a ceiling rather than a quota.