02 — Source Provenance and Attribution

This is the load-bearing file in the pack.

newsroom.sgit.ai will republish — in original or curated form — material first published on docs.diniscruz.ai between February 2025 and October 2025. The historical link to the source must survive that move.

There is a second reason beyond good practice. This is a site whose central argument is that most articles do not provide evidence, they provide a link, the link is never followed, and it could go to a site that no longer exists. A future-of-news site that loses its own provenance chain has refuted itself on page one. The provenance discipline is the demonstration.

1. The provenance contract

Every page on newsroom.sgit.ai that derives from previously published material MUST carry these fields. Machine-readable values for all of them are in sources__docs-diniscruz-ai.json.

# ---- provenance block: required on every derived page ----
source_title:        "The Future of News Monetization: Embracing Micro and Nano Payments"
source_url:          https://docs.diniscruz.ai/2025/04/02/the-future-of-news-monetization__embracing-micro-and-nano-payments.html
source_site:         docs.diniscruz.ai
first_published:     2025-04-02          # the ORIGINAL date, never the republication date
authors:             ["Dinis Cruz", "ChatGPT Deep Research"]
source_repo:         https://github.com/DinisCruz/docs.diniscruz.ai
source_repo_path:    docs/2025/04/02/the-future-of-news-monetization__embracing-micro-and-nano-payments.md
source_pdf:          https://files.diniscruz.ai/github/pdf/2025/04/02/the-future-of-news-monetization__embracing-micro-and-nano-payments.pdf
source_linkedin:     https://www.linkedin.com/posts/diniscruz_the-future-of-news-monetization-activity-7313197799121039360-8PKH
source_licence:      CC0-1.0             # docs.diniscruz.ai is CC0; this site is CC BY 4.0 — see §5
republished:         2026-08-21          # when it landed here
curation:            verbatim            # verbatim | edited | excerpted | synthesised
curation_note:       "Republished unchanged; headings normalised to house style."

Field rules

Field	Rule
`first_published`	The original date, always. This is the single most important field. A reader must be able to see that the micropayments argument is from April 2025, not from this site's launch week.
`republished`	When it appeared here. Never conflate with `first_published`.
`curation`	One of four values. Be honest — `synthesised` is not a lesser status, it is a different claim about the text.
`authors`	Copy verbatim from source. 72 of the source articles credit `["Dinis Cruz", "ChatGPT Deep Research"]` — the co-authorship is explicit and must be preserved, not quietly dropped. See §5.
`source_pdf`	Every core article has one and all resolve. Keep it — the PDF is a fixed artefact where the HTML may drift.
`source_linkedin`	Present for most. It is the record of first public circulation, distinct from first publication.

2. The visible rendering

The block above is metadata. The reader needs a visible version. Proposed, at the top of every derived page — not buried in a footer, because the date is part of the argument:

First published 2 April 2025 on docs.diniscruz.ai ↗ by Dinis Cruz and ChatGPT Deep Research · original PDF ↗ · LinkedIn ↗ Republished here 21 August 2026, unchanged.

And where the text has been changed, say so in the same breath:

Republished here 21 August 2026, edited: the 2025 payment-rail section has been superseded by x402 and the Cloudflare Monetization Gateway; see /economics/rails/. The original text is unchanged at the source link above.

That second pattern is the one that matters. It is the site practising correction-propagation on itself: the original stays where it is, the newer knowledge attaches rather than overwrites. That is theme 3 made visible, and it costs nothing.

3. Do not break the old links

docs.diniscruz.ai uses use_directory_urls: false, so every article is a .html file at a dated path:

https://docs.diniscruz.ai/{YYYY}/{MM}/{DD}/{slug}.html

Those URLs are live, indexed, and referenced from LinkedIn posts going back to early 2025.

Rules:

Never redirect docs.diniscruz.ai to newsroom.sgit.ai. The old URLs are the provenance anchor. If they move, every LinkedIn post from 2025 loses its target and the site's own chain breaks.
Link forward, not backward. Add a line to the source article pointing at the newsroom page — "a developed version of this argument is at newsroom.sgit.ai/…". That preserves both directions without moving anything.
Keep the PDFs reachable. They are served from S3 at files.diniscruz.ai/github/pdf/{date}/{name}.pdf. See the durability warning in §4.
Use rel="canonical" pointing at the source for verbatim republications, so search engines attribute the original correctly and the newsroom page does not compete with it.

4. ⚠️ A durability problem to fix first

The CI in files.diniscruz.ai syncs ./files/ to S3 (749670524505--files-diniscruz-ai, target prefix github/). But:

The bucket holds 94 PDFs. The git repo holds 11. files.diniscruz.ai last committed 2025-04-02; docs.diniscruz.ai kept publishing to 2025-10-03.
All 94 serve correctly today — this is not a broken-link problem.
It is a provenance problem: 83 published PDFs exist only in an S3 bucket, with no git history, no version, no reproducibility, and no second copy.

If newsroom.sgit.ai is going to cite those PDFs as durable source artefacts, back-fill them into the repo first. Otherwise the site's evidence chain terminates in a single mutable bucket — precisely the failure mode the site exists to argue against.

Same category, worth checking while you are in there: 11 articles on docs.diniscruz.ai render a literal {{title}} as their heading, including Semantic OWASP and The Future of News: Building Trust Through Fact Provenance — one of the ten core news articles. Fix before linking to it as canonical.

5. Two attribution decisions to make deliberately

5.1 Licence mismatch

Site	Licence	Means
`docs.diniscruz.ai`	CC0 1.0 Universal	Public-domain dedication. No attribution required.
`*.sgit.ai` family	CC BY 4.0 (decision of 21 Aug 2026)	Attribution required.

These are different grants over closely related material. CC0 is the more permissive, so republishing CC0 material under CC BY 4.0 is legally fine — but the newsroom page cannot make the original more restrictive than it is. State the source licence in the provenance block (source_licence: CC0-1.0) and let the newsroom's own additions carry CC BY 4.0.

Cleanest resolution, and the one this site should argue for: align docs.diniscruz.ai to CC BY 4.0 going forward, leaving already-published articles as CC0. A site about attribution that dedicates its own work to the public domain with no attribution requirement is making an argument it may not intend.

5.2 Model co-authorship is explicit here

Across docs.diniscruz.ai: 72 files credit ["Dinis Cruz", "ChatGPT Deep Research"], 10 credit Dinis Cruz alone, 7 credit ChatGPT Deep Research alone, and several add Claude 3.5 / 3.7 / Opus 4 / Opus 4.1.

The *.sgit.ai default is "unless explicit on the doc, authored by Dinis Cruz." Here it is explicit, and it is shared. Two consequences:

Preserve the credit verbatim. Dropping a co-author on republication is exactly the attribution failure the site is about.
It is an asset, not an awkwardness. A site arguing for provenance and disclosed agenda, which discloses its own model co-authorship in structured front-matter going back to February 2025, has a two-year track record of the practice it recommends. Put that on /about/participant/ rather than hiding it.

6. Extending the contract to `__Send` material

The same discipline applies to briefs lifted out of the __Send repo, with different field values:

source_repo:      https://github.com/the-cyber-boardroom/SGraph-AI__App__Send
source_repo_path: team/humans/dinis_cruz/briefs/07/05/evidence-economy/v0.33.44__strategy-brief__sg-send-evidence-packs-as-a-service-agentic-api-sg-vaults-skills-model-on-demand-micropayments.md
source_version:   v0.33.44
first_written:    2026-07-05
source_licence:   CC BY 4.0
curation:         edited
curation_note:    "Risk Mandate framing removed; see 06__boundaries §2."

Note source_version rather than source_url — these were never published, so the version tag is the address. Use first_written rather than first_published so the two cases stay distinguishable in the data.

7. Checklist before publishing any derived page

[ ] first_published is the original date, not today
[ ] source_url resolves (all 13 verified 21 Aug 2026)
[ ] Co-authors copied verbatim, models included
[ ] curation value is honest
[ ] Where edited, the change is named and the original is linked
[ ] rel="canonical" set for verbatim republications
[ ] Source PDF exists in git, not only S3 (see §4)
[ ] Source licence stated where it differs from CC BY 4.0
[ ] The source article has a forward-link to this page

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

== briefs/03__corpus-index__send-repo.md