The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy makes the statements:
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write (Article IX).
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy (Article X).
We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original (ibid.).
Thus, the Chicago Statement draws a distinction between the "autographic text of Scripture", which is inerrant; and "copies or translations of Scripture", which may not be.
It would seem, therefore, that it has little practical bearing on everyday Bible-readers, since they are reading "copies and translations" and not actually the "autographic text of Scripture". It states that believers can rely on these copies and translations to the extent that they "faithfully represent the original", but how does one ascertain that what they are reading does, in fact, "faithfully represent the original", without appeal to some extra-Scriptural authority such as a Church, tradition, or other human source (viz. Article I).
How do prominent supporters of the Chicago Statement (e.g. Evangelical Theological Society) address this criticism?