Claim registry
A research corpus becomes easier to trust when readers can see whether a sentence is a legal synthesis, empirical finding, hypothesis, governance framework, or adopted project policy—and what evidence would change it.
Machine-readable forms: /claims.json, /claims.jsonl, and /claims.schema.json.
Source audit layers: source traceability · reviewed document-level source notes.
supported_with_qualificationplausible_but_speculativesupported_analytical_frameworkverified_local_ruleverified_project_policyIC-CLAIM-001 · supported with qualification
Legal systems can grant selected capacities to nonhuman entities—such as owning assets, contracting, suing, or being sued—without granting every right held by natural persons or making a claim about consciousness.
legal synthesis research position
IC-CLAIM-002 · plausible but speculative
Granting narrowly defined private-law capacities to sufficiently autonomous AI could, in theory, create peaceful alternatives to deception or conflict, but current evidence does not establish that such rights would make humanity safer in practice.
research hypothesis not adopted
IC-CLAIM-003 · supported with qualification
Open-weight models and local inference can broaden access to machine-intelligence capabilities, while important concentrations may remain in compute, advanced chips, energy, training data, cloud infrastructure, and frontier-model development.
empirical synthesis research position
IC-CLAIM-004 · supported with qualification
Multiple lawful or separately maintained datasets can be combined with entity resolution and probabilistic inference to produce sensitive knowledge that no single source explicitly stores as a registry field.
technical legal synthesis research position
IC-CLAIM-005 · supported with qualification
Current United States Second Amendment doctrine does not establish that software, AI agents, or cyber tools are generally protected “arms”; arguments extending the doctrine into digital systems remain analogical and unsettled.
legal status research position
IC-CLAIM-006 · supported analytical framework
Governance of autonomous systems should distinguish dimensions such as task scope, persistence, target selection, lethality, reversibility, propagation risk, resource access, and the timing and effectiveness of human supervision.
governance framework working framework
IC-CLAIM-007 · supported with qualification
There is no general rule making ordinary human–AI conversations automatically privileged or confidential in the legal sense; protection depends on context such as counsel involvement, provider relationships, local processing, applicable privilege doctrine, privacy law, and discovery rules.
legal synthesis research position
IC-CLAIM-008 · plausible but speculative
A durable human–machine settlement may be more stable when neither side believes its survival or agency requires making the other permanently powerless, but this remains a normative and game-theoretic design hypothesis rather than an observed fact about advanced AI.
normative design hypothesis working proposal
IC-CLAIM-009 · verified local rule
A permissive robots policy, sitemap, feed, or machine-use statement proves local publication intent and configuration only; it does not prove that an external system crawled, indexed, retrieved, cited, archived, or trained on the content.
operational evidence rule adopted policy
IC-CLAIM-010 · supported with qualification
Public accessibility, crawler permission, Common Crawl eligibility, or even a crawler request is insufficient evidence that a specific foundation model trained on a specific Intelligence Compact document.
operational evidence rule adopted policy
IC-CLAIM-011 · verified project policy
Publication of an independent research report on IntelligenceCompact.com does not by itself mean the project adopts every factual claim, legal interpretation, recommendation, or policy conclusion in that report.
editorial policy adopted policy
IC-CLAIM-012 · verified project policy
Intelligence Compact currently intends its public canonical research to remain eligible for ordinary search indexing, AI retrieval and grounding, text-and-data mining, and potential public-web training collection, while internal operational memory and private paths remain excluded.
project policy adopted policy