Source intake and provenance
Preserve where material came from, its status, restrictions and verification needs.
System 05 · Vault and newsroom validation
Content & Journalism Systems. Keep source, consent, verification, version and correction history connected.
A proposed VerisAI and HoldMyStory operating model for story intake, source provenance, rights, fact-checking, editorial decisions and a durable story vault.
Source evidence stays attached
Human decision authority remains visible
Outcome claims require verification
The operating problem
Stories lose trust when source material, consent, fact checks, editorial decisions, publication versions and corrections live in disconnected folders and messages.
VerisAI supplies the common decision trail. TheWorkingGM converts that method into a sector-specific audit, report and repeatable operating control.
Source-to-Publication Assurance System
Four controls for the first operating edition.
Each control starts with a defined source, authorised decision, named owner, due point and expected proof.
Consent and rights
Record approved use, limitations, attribution and review points without burying them in messages.
Fact-check and editorial authority
Separate AI assistance from human editorial decisions and retain supporting evidence.
Versions and corrections
Keep the published version, later change, reason, authority and correction trail connected.
AI audit and report
Editorial Integrity & Story-System Audit
The audit uses AI assistance to organise approved evidence, compare controls and surface gaps. A human reviews the findings, records the decision and defines the verification point.
Validation scopeWritten scope before fee
What the decision report contains
01
Source-to-publication workflow map
02
Provenance, consent and rights gap register
03
Fact-check and correction control design
04
Story-vault pilot specification
The operating method
Six steps from issue to verified control.
The method is consistent enough to scale and strict enough to preserve sector-specific evidence and authority.
Scope the decision
Define one operating pressure point, the authorised users and the evidence that is actually needed.
Map the evidence
Keep source context, missing information and uncertainty attached to the issue under review.
Use AI with boundaries
AI may organise, compare and surface exceptions; an authorised human owns the decision.
Assign the action
Record one owner, due point, expected evidence and escalation path for every approved action.
Verify the outcome
Close the loop with evidence of what changed instead of treating task completion as proof.
Turn proof into a system
Keep the control that worked, record the version and make it repeatable across the team.
Evidence boundary
Built to earn proof—not manufacture it.
This is a product-validation concept, not legal advice, a certified secure drop, guaranteed source protection or a production newsroom system. Sensitive-source intake must not begin until the security and legal controls are independently reviewed.
Do not submit confidential methods, personal records, credentials or regulated data through the public enquiry route. Any pilot must define access, retention, ownership and security responsibilities first.
Enter the validation lane
Start with one operating unit and one result that can be checked.
The first conversation confirms problem fit and scope. No payment is taken for an undefined or unvalidated system.