PROV-11 · When detection is not enough

Argue the case that process controls — sourcing, custody, credentials, verification practice — should be a newsroom's primary defense, and detector scores at most a secondary input. Then argue the strongest case against your own position and say what would change your mind.

Your own PROV-01 results if you have them, or a classmate's, as evidence about detector limits. Documented cases where verification succeeded or failed, cited. Published newsroom verification practice. The costs of both approaches — detector tooling and subscriptions versus staff time, training, and slower publication — at least roughly estimated, because "process controls" is not free and an argument that pretends otherwise is not honest.

Straw-manning detection, which makes the argument easy and worthless. Ignoring the cases where a detector genuinely helped as a triage signal. Treating process controls as costless. Writing an essay with no falsifiable claim. Failing to say what evidence would change the conclusion, which is the difference between an argument and a position.

A position paper: the claim stated in one sentence; the evidence for it, including your own or a classmate's measurements; the strongest counter-argument, made in good faith rather than as a setup; the rough cost comparison; the conditions under which detection should be trusted more — better calibration, published false-positive rates, independent evaluation; and an explicit statement of what would change your mind.

CT: building an argument that could lose. CR: choosing which evidence actually bears on the claim. CO: a peer argues the detector-first case at full strength and is answered. CM: a paper a newsroom leader would circulate. CZ: who is wrongly accused under each approach.

A standards editor, verification specialist, or media researcher reviews the counter-argument for good faith. Standing instruction: reject a paper whose counter-argument is a straw man. School-supervised.

R1: one claim, one sentence. R2: every empirical claim cited or measured. R3: comparator is the detector-first approach argued at full strength. R4: costs of the preferred approach stated. R5: circulates without the author present. R6: names the evidence that would change the conclusion.

(a) A confident essay against a detection strategy nobody actually advocates. (b) Process controls presented as free.

Lane A immediately (journalism, AP Research, or debate cross-listing). Strong non-production option. Pairs with PROV-01. No verified credit claim.