From an article to social posts

Here is a published article. I don't want a summary.

List 8 cores — specific claims that are supported in the
article and hold up even pulled out of context.

For each one, give:
- the core as a single statement (not a headline, not a
  question)
- the exact passage from the article it's based on
- who is making the claim (attribution), unless it's the
  newsroom's own finding
- whether it contains a number, name, or date
- what the reader has to infer to understand it without the
  article

Rules:
- don't add anything that isn't in the article
- copy numbers verbatim, don't round or recalculate
- keep hedges (“apparently,” “according to,” “not yet final”)
  exactly as worded
- don't repeat the same thing in different words

Article:
[paste the text here]

Here are 8 cores from a published article and a link to it.
Produce a set of posts. Each one stands on ONE core — note
its number. No post is a summary of the article.

- X / Bluesky: 2 posts, each under 260 characters including
  spaces, one specific number or name, attribution in the text
- Facebook: 2 posts, 3-4 sentences, the second sentence says
  who this affects
- LinkedIn: 1 post, 100-150 words, first line under 12 words,
  angle "what this means for the industry," no emoji, no
  hashtags
- Instagram: 1 caption under 300 characters, understandable
  without a click-through, plus a suggestion for the image
- Newsletter: 1 paragraph of 4 sentences, last sentence says
  what readers will find in the article beyond this

In every post: no claim that isn't in the article; hedges
and attribution carry over; numbers verbatim.
Don't use the intro or the headline verbatim.
Below each post, note which core it's based on.

Go through these posts and the attached article. For each
post, return:

1. what the post promises (as one sentence, as a reader would
   phrase it)
2. does the article deliver on it? YES / PARTIALLY / NO — and
   why
3. does the post withhold a subject, outcome, or amount to
   create curiosity?
4. does it contain a judgment or superlative that isn't in the
   article?
5. has an attribution or hedge from the article gone missing
   from the post?

Don't rewrite anything, just list findings with a quote.

Compare each post with the article. I only care about the
facts.

Table: post | claim in the post | how the article states it | drift

Label the drift: MATCH / WEAKENED / STRENGTHENED / MISSING
ATTRIBUTION / MISSING HEDGE / NOT IN ARTICLE.

Check specifically:
- every number, character by character
- time references (does the article say "on Monday" and the
  post say "today"?)
- the distinction between being charged, indicted, and
  convicted
- whether "according to the document" quietly became a claim
  by the newsroom

Don't fix anything.

The article received a correction. Original wording: [...]
Corrected wording: [...]

Here are the posts that went out with the article.
For each one, determine:
1. does the correction affect it? YES / NO
2. if yes: FIX (and propose new wording within the same
   character limit) or DELETE (and say why)

Finally, propose a standalone post about the correction:
what was wrong, what's correct now, no apologetic language
and no explaining why the error happened.

There's news on this article: [describe what happened and
attach the source].

Propose 3 posts that link back to the article. Each one must
open with the news, not the article — the article is context,
not the point. State the date of the original finding in the
post, so it's clear this isn't a new finding.

Limits: 260 characters, 3 sentences, 100 words (for three
different networks).
Nothing that isn't in the article or in the attached news.