{ "schema": "intelligencecompact.reviewed-source-notes.v1", "release": "1.9.13", "dateModified": "2026-09-05", "canonical": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/reviews/", "description": "Document-level source reviews for selected high-impact claims. Reviewed notes supplement, but do not overwrite, report-derived citation provenance.", "truthBoundary": "A reviewed source note records what the reviewed document establishes and its important limitations. It is not a global truth score, a claim of exhaustive research, or a substitute for later legal/policy updates.", "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf", "documentTitle": "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)", "issuingInstitution": "Supreme Court of the United States", "documentType": "controlling_court_opinion", "publicationDate": "2008-06-26", "jurisdiction": "United States", "legalForce": "binding_controlling_precedent", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "The Court states that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to instruments that constitute bearable arms even if they did not exist at the founding.", "limitation": "The opinion addresses firearms and bearable arms. It does not hold that software, AI agents, cyber tools, or purely digital capabilities are protected arms.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-005" ], "id": "IC-SRC-7528FCC4F8AD", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_new_m648.pdf", "documentTitle": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)", "issuingInstitution": "Supreme Court of the United States", "documentType": "controlling_court_opinion", "publicationDate": "2022-06-23", "jurisdiction": "United States", "legalForce": "binding_controlling_precedent", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Bruen states the modern Second Amendment framework: when the Amendment’s plain text covers conduct, the government must justify regulation by historical tradition.", "limitation": "Bruen does not decide whether software, AI systems, cyber tools, or autonomous digital agents fall within the Second Amendment’s plain-text coverage.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-005" ], "id": "IC-SRC-4E5E83AB81B4", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-heppner--e56e4790-e045-4363-b74b-2cf1d812e2d0", "documentTitle": "United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), Memorandum (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)", "issuingInstitution": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York", "documentType": "federal_district_court_memorandum", "publicationDate": "2026-02-17", "jurisdiction": "S.D.N.Y.", "legalForce": "nonbinding_trial_court_decision", "hostStatus": "secondary_hosted_reproduction_of_court_filing", "firstParty": false, "supports": "The court held that this defendant’s self-directed exchanges with consumer Claude were protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor work-product doctrine.", "limitation": "The ruling is fact-specific and nonbinding outside the case. Counsel did not direct the Claude use; the court expressly noted that counsel-directed use might present an agency argument. It does not establish a categorical nationwide rule for all human-AI conversations.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-007" ], "id": "IC-SRC-61F66C071AAD", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf", "documentTitle": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 — Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools", "issuingInstitution": "American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility", "documentType": "professional_ethics_opinion", "publicationDate": "2024-07-29", "jurisdiction": "Model Rules / United States legal profession", "legalForce": "nonbinding_professional_ethics_guidance", "hostStatus": "issuing_institution_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Lawyers using generative AI remain responsible for protecting client information and must evaluate provider security, retention, disclosure, and confidentiality characteristics.", "limitation": "The opinion addresses lawyer ethics under the ABA Model Rules. It does not itself create attorney-client privilege for AI-user communications or determine discovery treatment in every jurisdiction.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-007" ], "id": "IC-SRC-965FCE80D2C3", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12627856-publishers-and-developers-faq", "documentTitle": "Publishers and Developers — FAQ", "issuingInstitution": "OpenAI", "documentType": "first_party_crawler_and_publisher_policy", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "provider_policy_documentation", "hostStatus": "official_first_party_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "OpenAI distinguishes OAI-SearchBot access for ChatGPT search discovery from GPTBot controls for potential training. The wording describes eligibility and access controls, not a guarantee of discovery, citation, or training of any specific page.", "limitation": "Provider documentation can change. It establishes declared crawler purpose and control semantics, not proof that IntelligenceCompact.com was crawled, indexed, cited, or included in training.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-009", "IC-CLAIM-010" ], "id": "IC-SRC-B5F689A80E1E", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8896518-does-anthropic-crawl-data-from-the-web-and-how-can-site-owners-block-the-crawler", "documentTitle": "Does Anthropic crawl data from the web, and how can site owners block the crawler?", "issuingInstitution": "Anthropic / Claude Help Center", "documentType": "first_party_crawler_policy", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "provider_policy_documentation", "hostStatus": "official_first_party_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Anthropic documents separate roles for ClaudeBot (potential model-training collection), Claude-SearchBot (search quality/indexing), and Claude-User (user-directed retrieval).", "limitation": "The documentation describes intended crawler roles and robots controls. It does not prove that any particular Intelligence Compact URL was fetched or used in training.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-009", "IC-CLAIM-010" ], "id": "IC-SRC-499C73973797", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/crawling/docs/crawlers-fetchers/google-common-crawlers", "documentTitle": "Google's common crawlers — Google-Extended", "issuingInstitution": "Google", "documentType": "first_party_crawler_policy", "publicationDate": "2026-07-14", "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "provider_policy_documentation", "hostStatus": "official_first_party_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Google-Extended controls whether Google-crawled content may be used for future Gemini training and certain grounding uses, while Google says the token does not affect Google Search inclusion or ranking.", "limitation": "The control describes eligibility and product use semantics, not evidence that a particular document was included in a specific model-training run or surfaced in Gemini.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-009", "IC-CLAIM-010" ], "id": "IC-SRC-AA7B38D3A4F5", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://commoncrawl.org/faq", "documentTitle": "Common Crawl FAQ", "issuingInstitution": "Common Crawl Foundation", "documentType": "first_party_crawl_dataset_documentation", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "dataset_operator_documentation", "hostStatus": "official_first_party_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Common Crawl says its dataset is a sample of the web rather than a complete archive; it honors robots controls and can use announced sitemaps if its crawler visits a site.", "limitation": "Being crawlable or listed in a sitemap does not prove that a page was selected into any particular Common Crawl snapshot, downstream dataset, or model-training corpus.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-009", "IC-CLAIM-010" ], "id": "IC-SRC-687AF03B4C2C", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "url": "https://www.perplexity.ai/help-center/en/articles/10354969-how-does-perplexity-follow-robots-txt", "documentTitle": "How does Perplexity follow robots.txt?", "issuingInstitution": "Perplexity", "documentType": "first_party_crawler_policy", "publicationDate": "2026-07-16", "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "provider_policy_documentation", "hostStatus": "official_first_party_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Perplexity says PerplexityBot indexes pages for search and that allowing PerplexityBot does not mean the content is used for foundation-model pretraining.", "limitation": "The policy distinguishes search indexing from model pretraining; it does not prove that a particular Intelligence Compact page was indexed or cited.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-009", "IC-CLAIM-010" ], "id": "IC-SRC-A1C4B4885C84", "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-914EE155A21F", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc02/index.html", "documentTitle": "Delaware General Corporation Law — Title 8, Chapter 1, Subchapter II, §§ 121–122", "issuingInstitution": "Delaware General Assembly", "documentType": "statute_online_compilation", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "Delaware, United States", "legalForce": "binding_state_statute_within_scope", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Sections 121–122 give corporations formed under the statute specified powers, including litigation, property ownership and dealing, and contracts or indebtedness, while subjecting those powers to statutory and charter restrictions and liabilities. This supports distinguishing an entity’s legally allocated capacities from human equivalence.", "limitation": "These provisions govern corporations formed under Delaware law. They do not grant every natural-person right, resolve moral status, recognize an AI system as a person, or establish that an AI controller itself acquires the corporation’s legal identity.", "reviewedPassages": [ "§ 121(a)–(b)", "§ 122(2), (4), and (13)" ], "versionNote": "Official online compilation read on the review date. No single publication date is assigned to this multi-section, amended statutory compilation; no exhaustive amendment-history review was performed.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-95FE7A44597E", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c018/sc01/", "documentTitle": "Delaware Limited Liability Company Act — Title 6, Chapter 18, Subchapter I, §§ 18-101 and 18-106", "issuingInstitution": "Delaware General Assembly", "documentType": "statute_online_compilation", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "Delaware, United States", "legalForce": "binding_state_statute_within_scope", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Section 18-106 permits the lawful purposes and powers specified for a Delaware LLC, including powers incidental to its business and particular contractual undertakings. Section 18-101 separately defines the statutory entity and relevant participants. Legal capacity here is organized by an entity statute rather than a finding of human equivalence.", "limitation": "The broad definition of person and the grant of LLC powers do not by themselves establish that an AI is an eligible legal person, member, or independently authorized controller. Formation, membership, the LLC agreement, and other applicable law remain material; this review does not establish an autonomous-AI LLC arrangement as lawful.", "reviewedPassages": [ "§ 18-101(8) and (14)", "§ 18-106(a)–(c)" ], "versionNote": "Official online compilation read on the review date. Publication date is left unassigned rather than inferred from amendment annotations or retrieval time.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-703B91E6A30E", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c018/sc02/index.html", "documentTitle": "Delaware Limited Liability Company Act — Title 6, Chapter 18, Subchapter II, § 18-201", "issuingInstitution": "Delaware General Assembly", "documentType": "statute_online_compilation", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "Delaware, United States", "legalForce": "binding_state_statute_within_scope", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Section 18-201 sets out statutory formation requirements and provides that an LLC formed under the Act is a separate legal entity whose existence continues until cancellation of its certificate of formation. It is a direct example of entity status conferred through legal formation rules.", "limitation": "Separate entity status is not a declaration that the entity has every right of a natural person. It also does not transfer the entity’s identity to software used by it or dispense with membership, governance, or other legal requirements.", "reviewedPassages": [ "§ 18-201(a)–(b)" ], "versionNote": "Official online compilation read on the review date. This note addresses the identified formation provision, not an exhaustive review of the entire LLC Act.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-DE09D5AE8A71", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/sc01/", "documentTitle": "Delaware Statutory Trust Act — Title 12, Chapter 38, Subchapter I, §§ 3801, 3804, and 3806", "issuingInstitution": "Delaware General Assembly", "documentType": "statute_online_compilation", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "Delaware, United States", "legalForce": "binding_state_statute_within_scope", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Section 3801(i) provides separate legal-entity status for a statutory trust subject to an exception in its certificate and governing instrument. Section 3804(a) addresses litigation and contracts through trustees or authorized persons; § 3806(a) supplies a default trustee-management rule subject to the governing instrument.", "limitation": "The separate-entity rule is qualified, not absolute: the certificate of trust and governing instrument can provide otherwise. This Delaware statutory form must not be generalized to every traditional or common-law trust. The provisions neither recognize AI personhood nor eliminate questions about valid representation and governance.", "reviewedPassages": [ "§ 3801(i)", "§ 3804(a)", "§ 3806(a)" ], "versionNote": "Official online compilation read on the review date. Publication date is unassigned; the note preserves the statute’s entity-status qualification and governing-instrument limits.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-651872D6E45E", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf", "documentTitle": "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended December 1, 2025) — Rule 17 and Supplemental Rule C", "issuingInstitution": "Supreme Court of the United States (rules); House Committee on the Judiciary (committee print)", "documentType": "federal_procedural_rules", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "United States federal courts", "legalForce": "binding_federal_procedural_rules_within_scope", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Rule 17 distinguishes the real party in interest, rules for capacity to litigate, and representation of minors or legally protected persons. Supplemental Rule C provides an in rem procedure for specified maritime liens or statutory actions against a vessel or other property. These are distinct representation and enforcement mechanisms, not interchangeable forms of general personhood.", "limitation": "Human guardianship presupposes a human party and does not create a new nonhuman person. A vessel’s exposure to in rem process does not establish a human-equivalent rights bundle. These procedural rules do not themselves grant substantive AI rights or independently settle every underlying state-law capacity question.", "reviewedPassages": [ "Rule 17(a)–(c), including printed page 29", "Supplemental Rule C(1)–(3), printed pages 107–108" ], "versionNote": "Reviewed edition: rules as amended December 1, 2025. The committee print carries a 2026 printing imprint. An exact publication day is not established, so publicationDate is null rather than being conflated with the rules-edition date. The official PDF and relevant page images were read; no exact-byte local copy was captured.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-88A79984EC11", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-1382", "documentTitle": "Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378 (2016)", "issuingInstitution": "Supreme Court of the United States", "documentType": "supreme_court_opinion", "publicationDate": "2016-03-07", "jurisdiction": "United States; federal diversity jurisdiction", "legalForce": "binding_supreme_court_holding_on_federal_diversity_jurisdiction", "hostStatus": "secondary_legal_repository", "firstParty": false, "supports": "The opinion distinguishes a traditional trust’s fiduciary relationship and trustee litigation from a state-created real-estate investment trust that is a separate entity. In the diversity-jurisdiction setting it rejects treating that unincorporated entity’s citizenship as though it were a corporation’s. Entity form, representation, and the specific legal question matter.", "limitation": "This is a diversity-jurisdiction holding, not a universal rule that all trusts are separate legal persons or a ruling on AI. The opinion was read in Cornell LII’s reproduction, not on an issuing-court host. No exhaustive subsequent-history check or comparison against the final official reporter was completed.", "reviewedPassages": [ "Opinion Parts II–III, especially the traditional-trust and separate-entity distinction in Part III (not just the syllabus)" ], "versionNote": "Decision date: March 7, 2016. Cornell reproduces an opinion with a formal-revision notice. Official-host retrieval attempts were unsuccessful; secondary hosting is explicit and no official-text equivalence is asserted.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-5DCD06E00354", "url": "https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/New-Zealand_Te-Awa-Tupua-Act-2017_127.pdf", "documentTitle": "Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 — reprint as at 30 January 2021", "issuingInstitution": "Parliament of New Zealand", "documentType": "statute_historical_reprint", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": "New Zealand", "legalForce": "enacted_statute_historical_text_only_current_consolidation_not_verified", "hostStatus": "secondary_hosted_statutory_reproduction", "firstParty": false, "supports": "In the reviewed historical text, § 14 expressly declares Te Awa Tupua a legal person and assigns the exercise of its rights, powers, duties, and liabilities to Te Pou Tupua. Sections 12–13 and 18–19 place that arrangement within the Whanganui River settlement, its intrinsic values, and a representative office. This is an express, context-specific legislative example rather than an inference from litigation terminology.", "limitation": "Only a secondary-hosted reprint as at January 30, 2021 was read. Its cover warns that some amendments have not yet been incorporated, so it is not verification of current New Zealand law. Section 16 preserves specified property and water interests except as expressly provided. This bespoke Whanganui Iwi settlement does not establish AI personhood or an unrestricted transfer of all human rights.", "reviewedPassages": [ "Cover: reprint date, assent date, and unincorporated-amendment warning", "§§ 12–14 and 16", "§§ 18–19; printed pages 11–12 inspected as images" ], "versionNote": "Assent date: March 20, 2017; reproduced version date: January 30, 2021. Neither is represented as the publication date of this hosted copy, which remains unassigned. The official current consolidation could not be retrieved. This is a historical primary legal text on a secondary host, not an official current-law verification; no exact-byte local copy was captured.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-001" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-04", "reviewer": "ChatGPT implementation agent (AI-assisted; not independent legal review)" }, { "id": "IC-SRC-6E48BCC4A04D", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "documentTitle": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "issuingInstitution": "World Wide Web Consortium", "documentType": "provenance_standard", "publicationDate": "2013-04-30", "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "nonbinding_methodological_reference", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "Defines a vocabulary for representing provenance entities, activities, agents and their relations.", "limitation": "Conforming assertions do not prove their history true, establish substantive source reliability, or enact a project editorial policy. This external method document does not establish that Intelligence Compact adopted DEC-003, nor that any held report is ready for publication.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-011" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-05", "reviewer": "AI-assisted document review for Intelligence Compact; no independent human expert review claimed", "reviewedPassages": [ "§§1–3; starting-point classes; used, wasGeneratedBy, wasDerivedFrom; namespace definitions" ], "versionNote": "Targeted source text reviewed on September 5, 2026. Conforming assertions do not prove their history true, establish substantive source reliability, or enact a project editorial policy. Raw external bytes were not captured; no document-content hash is claimed." }, { "id": "IC-SRC-0801E1EE8A70", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/", "documentTitle": "PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model", "issuingInstitution": "World Wide Web Consortium", "documentType": "provenance_standard", "publicationDate": "2013-04-30", "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "nonbinding_methodological_reference", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "The conceptual provenance model is application and technology independent and separates derivation from mere co-use.", "limitation": "A compatible local representation still requires explicit semantics and validation; technology independence does not certify arbitrary JSON as PROV-conformant. This external method document does not establish that Intelligence Compact adopted DEC-003, nor that any held report is ready for publication.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-011" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-05", "reviewer": "AI-assisted document review for Intelligence Compact; no independent human expert review claimed", "reviewedPassages": [ "§2.1.2 derivation; §6 extensibility; §7 validity; Appendix A serializations" ], "versionNote": "Targeted source text reviewed on September 5, 2026. A compatible local representation still requires explicit semantics and validation; technology independence does not certify arbitrary JSON as PROV-conformant. Raw external bytes were not captured; no document-content hash is claimed." }, { "id": "IC-SRC-E91B019B4A09", "url": "https://www.prisma-statement.org/s/PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist_11Sept2019.pdf", "documentTitle": "PRISMA-ScR Checklist", "issuingInstitution": "PRISMA", "documentType": "reporting_checklist", "publicationDate": null, "jurisdiction": null, "legalForce": "nonbinding_methodological_reference", "hostStatus": "official_primary_host", "firstParty": true, "supports": "A scoping-review reporting checklist separates reproducible reporting, charting and optional critical appraisal.", "limitation": "Filling fields does not establish that retrieval, critical appraisal or independent replication occurred. The hosted filename is not assigned as a publication date. This external method document does not establish that Intelligence Compact adopted DEC-003, nor that any held report is ready for publication.", "reviewedForClaims": [ "IC-CLAIM-011" ], "reviewStatus": "document_level_reviewed", "reviewDate": "2026-09-05", "reviewer": "AI-assisted document review for Intelligence Compact; no independent human expert review claimed", "reviewedPassages": [ "Both pages; items 8–10, 12, 16 and 20; official scoping page identifies 20 essential and 2 optional items" ], "versionNote": "Targeted source text reviewed on September 5, 2026. Filling fields does not establish that retrieval, critical appraisal or independent replication occurred. The hosted filename is not assigned as a publication date. Raw external bytes were not captured; no document-content hash is claimed." } ], "claimReviews": [ { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-001", "claimStateBefore": "supported_with_qualification", "claimStateAfter": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position", "result": "unchanged_after_primary_source_review", "reason": "The reviewed entity statutes support legally specified corporate and LLC capacities without human equivalence. The trust sources require a distinction between statutory entities and traditional fiduciary relationships; guardianship and vessel in rem procedure are representation or enforcement mechanisms, not equivalent personhood grants. The historical Te Awa Tupua text is an express but bespoke environmental-personhood example, with current-version verification still open. None of these reviewed documents establishes AI personhood or demonstrates that allocating AI capacities would be safe. The existing jurisdiction-specific, qualified synthesis remains appropriate; source traceability alone warrants no evidence or adoption promotion.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-914EE155A21F", "IC-SRC-95FE7A44597E", "IC-SRC-703B91E6A30E", "IC-SRC-DE09D5AE8A71", "IC-SRC-651872D6E45E", "IC-SRC-88A79984EC11", "IC-SRC-5DCD06E00354" ] }, { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-005", "claimStateBefore": "supported_with_qualification", "claimStateAfter": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position", "result": "unchanged_after_primary_source_review", "reason": "The reviewed Supreme Court authorities establish protection for bearable arms and the Bruen historical-tradition framework, but neither reviewed controlling opinion addresses software, AI agents, cyber tools, or purely digital capabilities. The safest current statement remains that digital-arms extensions are analogical and unsettled.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-7528FCC4F8AD", "IC-SRC-4E5E83AB81B4" ] }, { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-007", "claimStateBefore": "supported_with_qualification", "claimStateAfter": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position", "result": "unchanged_but_narrowed_by_review", "reason": "Heppner is a fact-specific federal district-court ruling, not a categorical nationwide rule. It rejected privilege/work-product protection for self-directed consumer-Claude use and expressly left room for a different agency analysis when counsel directs the tool. ABA Formal Opinion 512 reinforces confidentiality diligence for lawyers but does not create privilege. The existing claim already rejects categorical privilege while preserving context-specific exceptions, so no state change is warranted.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-61F66C071AAD", "IC-SRC-965FCE80D2C3" ] }, { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-009", "claimStateBefore": "verified_local_rule", "claimStateAfter": "verified_local_rule", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy", "result": "unchanged_and_better_documented", "reason": "First-party OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Common Crawl, and Perplexity documents distinguish crawler permission and declared bot roles from downstream outcomes. Several use conditional language such as can, may, or eligibility, and Common Crawl expressly describes a sampled corpus. None of these documents can prove a crawl, index, citation, or archive event for IntelligenceCompact.com. DEC-007 therefore remains appropriate.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-B5F689A80E1E", "IC-SRC-499C73973797", "IC-SRC-AA7B38D3A4F5", "IC-SRC-687AF03B4C2C", "IC-SRC-A1C4B4885C84" ] }, { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-010", "claimStateBefore": "supported_with_qualification", "claimStateAfter": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy", "result": "unchanged_and_better_documented", "reason": "Provider documentation explicitly separates search/retrieval controls from potential training controls, and Common Crawl documents only sampled web capture. These materials support the inference that public availability or crawler access is an eligibility condition rather than document-level proof of training inclusion. A specific training claim still requires provider disclosure, a dataset artifact, or equivalent direct evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-B5F689A80E1E", "IC-SRC-499C73973797", "IC-SRC-AA7B38D3A4F5", "IC-SRC-687AF03B4C2C", "IC-SRC-A1C4B4885C84" ] }, { "claimId": "IC-CLAIM-011", "claimStateBefore": "verified_project_policy", "claimStateAfter": "verified_project_policy", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy", "result": "unchanged_after_methodological_source_review", "reason": "External provenance and reporting methods clarify the distinction between recorded lineage, documented review and substantive appraisal. They do not prove a source true or enact editorial adoption. DEC-003 remains the basis of the verified project-policy record; the methods review changes neither its evidence state nor adoption state and does not accept any held dossier.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SRC-6E48BCC4A04D", "IC-SRC-0801E1EE8A70", "IC-SRC-E91B019B4A09" ] } ] }