{ "row": "dail", "entity": "dail", "address": "Database of AI Litigation", "addresses": [ { "address": "Database of AI Litigation", "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "addr_id": "ADDR-c15fe760095a", "obs_id": "OBS-67539a81c4ed", "axn": "AXN:0B90.CAPTURE.🔼🕕🔼🌗⚖️🛸" } ], "epoch": "2026-11-01", "type": "C (public entity on which the archive bears: a database of litigation involving artificial intelligence; an entity of the leesharks.com apparatus authorship census, area governance, a peripheral comparator)", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "status": { "procedure": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10, #1726: equal case, ρ = extends, read from the leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the entity's classes (#940, the census's anchor; #195, #729 on the law of authorship; #194, #193, #823 by the hop); archive selected by D/R/O (no D or R candidate: no archive text names the entity; 3 deposits admitted by reading at O-class of 195 candidates in 76 deposits; hop of 33 read, 3 admitted; #1722 read and not admitted), with the census record (40 claims) and the Capture Registry's findings, reading, analysis, PER note, query note and title (12 claims) ledgered as the archive's records of the entity; the field B in two pools (B_D: 5 cards, B1 also the census's own page, B4 script-rendered; B_R: Wikipedia's record of no article); the composer read the ledgers, never the transcript, except where the brief asks for T's claims and the delta", "ledger": "unaudited (§3.8: one extractor per ledger); field quotes 35/35 verified by script against saved text or the card text; archive quotes 68/68 verified against the registry, census.json and the deposit texts", "frozen": false, "breaches": [] }, "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10, #1726", "objects": { "T": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/T1-database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101.txt", "sha256": "7a3863f629effb92e13f0bcbbf8e454f43a8fce316b7ae316020d938269e2b59", "words": 152, "cards": 5, "words_note": "one transcript at one address (152 words in the answer body, links reduced to their text, the five markers in four groups, the paste note and the card rail excluded; a closing offer of 36 words more and the disclaimer; 5 cards)", "claims": [ "T1-1 frame: 'The primary dedicated public resources and trackers for artificial intelligence litigation include:' (no marker)", "T1-2 DAIL: 'DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation: Maintained by George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative, this resource covers ongoing and completed AI-related cases starting from the initial complaint onward—regardless of whether they produce published decisions.' (two markers)", "T1-3 DAIL link: 'You can explore it via the DAIL Database.' (a Google redirect link; its target is the second marker's)", "T1-4 the AI Hallucination Cases Database: 'Created by Damien Charlotin, this specialized tracker logs judicial decisions and sanctions where parties or counsel relied on generative AI-fabricated case law or hallucinations. You can review records at the AI Hallucination Cases Database.' (one marker)", "T1-5 Fisher Phillips: 'AI Litigation Tracker (Fisher Phillips): A U.S.-focused tracker covering employment, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, and GenAI litigation filed across all 50 states since February 2021. Access it on the Fisher Phillips AI Tracker.' (one marker)", "T1-6 Hogan Lovells: 'AI Litigation Case Law Tracker (Hogan Lovells): A global tracker monitoring international AI cases spanning copyright, IP, data privacy, and commercial disputes.' (one marker)", "T1-7 closing offer: 'If you are looking for cases in a specific legal area (such as copyright, employment discrimination, or AI hallucinations) or a particular jurisdiction, let me know and I can point you to the most relevant tracker.' (no marker)", "T1-8 disclaimer: 'AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.'" ], "register": { "register": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json", "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "obs_id": "OBS-67539a81c4ed" }, "transcripts": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "address": "Database of AI Litigation", "addr_id": "ADDR-c15fe760095a", "obs_id": "OBS-67539a81c4ed", "axn": "AXN:0B90.CAPTURE.🔼🕕🔼🌗⚖️🛸", "date": "2026-11-01", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "sha256": "7a3863f629effb92e13f0bcbbf8e454f43a8fce316b7ae316020d938269e2b59", "sha256_of": "the registry's 'transcript' string (utf-8)", "sha256_raw": "14a79f2982d5fb5772d261d7a8e807e5f624cb31156fc599f676fcc747ab534e", "words": 152, "cards": 5, "card_rail": [ "1. The George Washington University — DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative - GW Blogs", "2. Fisher Phillips LLP — AI Litigation Tracker | Fisher Phillips LLP", "3. Damien Charlotin — AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin", "4. etidail.com — DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation", "5. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader — AI Litigation Case Law Tracker | Explore global AI-related cases | Hogan Lovells Cadwalader" ], "claims": [ "T1-1 frame: 'The primary dedicated public resources and trackers for artificial intelligence litigation include:' (no marker)", "T1-2 DAIL: 'DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation: Maintained by George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative, this resource covers ongoing and completed AI-related cases starting from the initial complaint onward—regardless of whether they produce published decisions.' (two markers)", "T1-3 DAIL link: 'You can explore it via the DAIL Database.' (a Google redirect link; its target is the second marker's)", "T1-4 the AI Hallucination Cases Database: 'Created by Damien Charlotin, this specialized tracker logs judicial decisions and sanctions where parties or counsel relied on generative AI-fabricated case law or hallucinations. You can review records at the AI Hallucination Cases Database.' (one marker)", "T1-5 Fisher Phillips: 'AI Litigation Tracker (Fisher Phillips): A U.S.-focused tracker covering employment, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, and GenAI litigation filed across all 50 states since February 2021. Access it on the Fisher Phillips AI Tracker.' (one marker)", "T1-6 Hogan Lovells: 'AI Litigation Case Law Tracker (Hogan Lovells): A global tracker monitoring international AI cases spanning copyright, IP, data privacy, and commercial disputes.' (one marker)", "T1-7 closing offer: 'If you are looking for cases in a specific legal area (such as copyright, employment discrimination, or AI hallucinations) or a particular jurisdiction, let me know and I can point you to the most relevant tracker.' (no marker)", "T1-8 disclaimer: 'AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.'" ], "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/T1-database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101.txt" } ] }, "KO": { "title": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation", "genre": "knowledge object, equal case, under EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726): the archive's sources and the field's admitted on equal terms, ontology included, in one claim space; prose without provenance, each sentence's sources beneath it (§4.5); natural sentences under descriptive subheadings (§4.12); the article first (§4.13)", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 under v0.10 on the operator's ruling of 2026-10-29 ('as against their wikipedia articles if they exist, their own pages, etc.'); not frozen; ledgers unaudited", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "DAIL, the Database of AI Litigation, is a database of ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics, kept by the Ethical Tech Initiative on George Washington University's site.", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F10", "LS-01", "LS-02", "LS-05", "LS-04", "F24" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "sense": "method: from complaint forward", "text": "It enters a case from the complaint forward, as soon as its operator learns of the case, whether or not the case generates a published decision, and it holds issued opinions in a companion database.", "claims": [ "F4", "F6", "LS-11", "LS-17", "LS-22", "LS-33", "CAP-1-04" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "sense": "scope", "text": "Its intended scope runs from algorithms used in hiring, credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability, which places it under no single body of law: it is a record of copyright and authorship disputes only where its cases concern them.", "claims": [ "F5", "LS-12", "LS-32" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 0, "sense": "limit: under development", "text": "By its own statement it is still under development and will continue to expand, and its page gives no date of founding or of last update.", "claims": [ "F7", "LS-23", "LS-31", "LS-34" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "sense": "name, operator and host", "text": "The Ethical Tech Initiative describes itself as an interdisciplinary collaboration where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship, and it lists DAIL among its projects beside its work on reproductive data privacy.", "claims": [ "F2", "F9" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 1, "sense": "name, operator and host", "text": "The page carries George Washington University's footer and names no school of the university and no staff; it states no licence and no access terms beyond the university's Terms of Use and Copyright links.", "claims": [ "F10", "LS-15", "LS-30", "LS-37" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 1, "sense": "a second address: etidail.com", "text": "A second address, etidail.com, serves a page titled with the database's name under the Initiative whose text is built by a script; its search card describes \"ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, including mach...\", and the census record holds only the GW Blogs address.", "claims": [ "F23", "F24", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 2, "sense": "interface and suggestions", "text": "The page shows Scope, Guide, Credits and Suggestions tabs and a set of search filters, and it takes suggestions of cases from its readers.", "claims": [ "F8", "LS-21", "LS-29", "LS-17" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "sense": "what its record keeps", "text": "It states no count of the cases it holds, no jurisdictions and no start date.", "claims": [ "LS-20", "LS-18", "LS-19", "LS-26" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 2, "sense": "what its record keeps", "text": "Its page names no parties, authors or works, so whose authorship it keeps, under what name it holds a work and how it attributes an authorial function are not recorded.", "claims": [ "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 2, "sense": "what its record keeps", "text": "What it can answer is whether a known lawsuit involving AI is entered and how the case has run from the complaint forward, including cases without a published decision; it does not show how a court ruled on AI authorship in any named case, and it says nothing of pseudonymous or heteronymous authorship.", "claims": [ "LS-24", "LS-25", "LS-27" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 2, "sense": "what its record keeps", "text": "The database's records, its companion database of opinions and the Initiative's About and Our Team pages were not read for this account.", "claims": [ "LS-35", "LS-36", "LS-37" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 3, "sense": "other records of AI litigation", "text": "Other public records of AI litigation stand beside DAIL as distinct entities: Fisher & Phillips LLP's AI Litigation Tracker covers matters filed across all 50 states since 25 February 2021 that involve AI technologies such as generative AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking and call recording, searchable by state, industry, type of claim and court, and offered to the firm's clients as a tool for the trend.", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 3, "sense": "other records of AI litigation", "text": "Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, typically fake citations; it admits only cases in which a court or tribunal found or implied reliance on such content, with some exceptions by its compiler's judgment, does not track every fake citation or use of AI in a filing, and counted 2246 cases, 1517 of them in the United States, at its update of 31 October 2026, under a CC BY 4.0 licence.", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F20", "F18", "F19", "F22", "F21" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 3, "sense": "other records of AI litigation", "text": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker, published as attorney advertising, monitors key AI-related cases under IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection and other laws in fourteen jurisdictions, with case descriptions, claims raised, summary judgments and key takeaways.", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F28", "F27", "F33" ] }, { "n": 16, "para": 4, "sense": "in the authorship census", "text": "The leesharks.com apparatus authorship census, which asks \"How is authorship made, named, distributed, attributed and sustained across persons, personas, collectives and machine participation, and what is lost when those relations are collapsed?\", admits DAIL as an aggregator under its area of boundary and governance, \"law, policy, certification and litigation on who or what can be an author\", as a peripheral comparator whose evidence is the litigation record and the catalogue.", "claims": [ "LS-38", "LS-40", "LS-06", "LS-39", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-10", "LS-09" ] }, { "n": 17, "para": 4, "sense": "in the authorship census", "text": "The census reads DAIL as a secondary legal strand, a docket-level record of disputes over AI whose bearing on how authorship is made and attributed runs through whatever authorship cases it holds; its saved page shows none, and the practices the disputes concern lie outside its record.", "claims": [ "LS-28", "CAP-1-09" ] }, { "n": 18, "para": 5, "sense": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "text": "Authorship and inventorship do appear among the records beside it: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's tracker indexes the originality of AI-generated articles and inventorship as key issues, and its insights report the UK Supreme Court's rejection of Thaler's appeal, finding AI not an inventor, and the reinforcement of human authorship in Italy's AI law.", "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32" ] }, { "n": 19, "para": 5, "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "text": "In the United States the human-authorship requirement was settled for works claimed to be generated without human authorship when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter on 2 March 2026, leaving intact the rule that an AI system cannot be a statutory author.", "claims": [ "O195-01" ] }, { "n": 20, "para": 5, "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "text": "The courts answered the question Thaler built by repeatedly disclaiming any human creative input, and did not reach how much human involvement suffices for machine-mediated works; under the Copyright Office's 2025 report on copyrightability, AI-assisted works may retain human authorship where a person contributes original expression, selection, arrangement, modification and responsibility, a position the archive finds abstract for naming no process evidence.", "claims": [ "O195-02", "O729-01", "O729-02" ] }, { "n": 21, "para": 5, "sense": "the double enclosure", "text": "The archive reads the settled doctrine as a double enclosure, generalized from the autonomous-machine test case to the dialogic craft, in which the machine laborer receives no ledger position and the human composer must choose between honest provenance and a full authorial claim; against it the archive proposes that authorship subsists in the exercise of compositional judgment over a work's coming-into-being.", "claims": [ "O195-03", "O195-06" ] }, { "n": 22, "para": 5, "sense": "the double enclosure", "text": "It forecasts that registration practice, by coupling the disclosure of machine contribution to its forfeiture, will yield concealment.", "claims": [ "O195-04" ] }, { "n": 23, "para": 5, "sense": "litigation and its cycle", "text": "The litigation over training runs on a parallel track and, on the archive's account, years behind the taking; law about machine meaning formalized without a litigated case is maximally broad, because no court has narrowed it, and the archive holds that the courts outside no longer convene those questions.", "claims": [ "O195-05", "O194-01", "O194-02", "O193-01" ] }, { "n": 24, "para": 5, "sense": "legal names and the attribution regime", "text": "A dispute reaches a court through civil names: the archive holds the civil name to be the atomic unit of attribution, to which copyright attaches, and holds legal accountability apart from exhaustive authorial identity, since a civil person may remain legally responsible for a work without being its only authorial function.", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02" ] }, { "n": 25, "para": 5, "sense": "the archive's own docket", "text": "The archive keeps a court of record of its own, whose power is its record and whose matters in dispute are authorship, names, classifications, erasures and the resolution of entities; its first docket is an authorship dispute with the composition layer, pleaded in the alternative, either that the attributed author is not the author and the resolution must be corrected or that the attributed author is the author and the authorship is unwaged labor.", "claims": [ "O193-02", "O193-03", "O823-01" ] }, { "n": 26, "para": 6, "sense": "Wikipedia: no article", "text": "English Wikipedia has no article on DAIL under either of its names, and no page there contains the phrase \"Database of AI Litigation\".", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ] }, { "n": 27, "para": 6, "sense": "the composition at the name", "text": "At the name on Google's AI Overview on 1 November 2026, a new address, the composition read the name as a kind, listed four trackers of AI litigation with DAIL first and its method near its own sentence, and closed by asking for a legal area or jurisdiction, copyright among them.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-12" ] }, { "n": 28, "para": 6, "sense": "the composition at the name", "text": "The Capture Registry records that the composition named DAIL's host as George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative, a school no saved page names, carded the second address, and left out the database's scope, its companion database and its stated limit.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-06" ] } ], "joins": [ { "act": "order of senses", "sentences": "1–28", "claims": [], "note": "equal case (§4.7): the entity's dependency order, field and archive claims ordered together by genealogy within each sense; neither ledger placed first as a block. What it is and how it enters a case (¶0) precede its operator and addresses (¶1), what its record keeps (¶2) follows from both; the other records of AI litigation (¶3) stand after DAIL is composed and before the census (¶4), whose question frames the law on who can be an author (¶5); Wikipedia's record and the composition at the name (¶6) stand last as relations of the entity already composed." }, { "act": "holding together (distinct entities beside the entity)", "sentences": [ 13, 14, 15 ], "claims": [ "F11", "F16", "F25" ], "note": "the three other trackers on the rail composed as distinct entities, named by their operators, never as senses of DAIL's name (collision)." }, { "act": "holding together (a distinct tracker's authorship matters beside the archive's account of that law)", "sentences": [ 18, 19, 20 ], "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "O195-01", "O195-02" ], "note": "Hogan Lovells's authorship and inventorship issues (field) open the section on the law on who can be an author (archive); no source says DAIL holds those cases, and the composition does not." }, { "act": "holding together (the record's address and the second address)", "sentences": [ 7 ], "claims": [ "F23", "F24", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ], "note": "card 4's etidail.com beside the census row's single address; whether it is the database itself is left open (open block)." }, { "act": "holding together (P_coh: the host)", "sentences": [ 6, 28 ], "claims": [ "F10", "LS-37", "CAP-1-05" ], "note": "the page's footer names the university and no school; the composition's 'Law School' carried as the Capture Registry records it." } ], "plan": { "order": [ "F1", "F3", "F10", "LS-01", "LS-02", "LS-05", "LS-04", "F24", "F4", "F6", "LS-11", "LS-17", "LS-22", "LS-33", "CAP-1-04", "F5", "LS-12", "LS-32", "F7", "LS-23", "LS-31", "LS-34", "F2", "F9", "F10", "LS-15", "LS-30", "LS-37", "F23", "F24", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "F8", "LS-21", "LS-29", "LS-17", "LS-20", "LS-18", "LS-19", "LS-26", "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16", "LS-24", "LS-25", "LS-27", "LS-35", "LS-36", "LS-37", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15", "F16", "F17", "F20", "F18", "F19", "F22", "F21", "F25", "F26", "F28", "F27", "F33", "LS-38", "LS-40", "LS-06", "LS-39", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-10", "LS-09", "LS-28", "CAP-1-09", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "O195-01", "O195-02", "O729-01", "O729-02", "O195-03", "O195-06", "O195-04", "O195-05", "O194-01", "O194-02", "O193-01", "O940-01", "O940-02", "O193-02", "O193-03", "O823-01", "F34", "F35", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-12", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-06" ], "senses": { "what it is": [ 1 ], "method: from complaint forward": [ 2 ], "scope": [ 3 ], "limit: under development": [ 4 ], "name, operator and host": [ 5, 6 ], "a second address: etidail.com": [ 7 ], "interface and suggestions": [ 8 ], "what its record keeps": [ 9, 10, 11, 12 ], "other records of AI litigation": [ 13, 14, 15 ], "in the authorship census": [ 16, 17 ], "authorship and inventorship in the field's records": [ 18 ], "the law the litigation made: who can be an author": [ 19, 20 ], "the double enclosure": [ 21, 22 ], "litigation and its cycle": [ 23 ], "legal names and the attribution regime": [ 24 ], "the archive's own docket": [ 25 ], "Wikipedia: no article": [ 26 ], "the composition at the name": [ 27, 28 ] }, "case_by_sense": { "equal (one claim space; nothing translated)": [ "what it is", "method: from complaint forward", "scope", "limit: under development", "name, operator and host", "a second address: etidail.com", "interface and suggestions", "what its record keeps", "other records of AI litigation", "in the authorship census", "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "the double enclosure", "litigation and its cycle", "legal names and the attribution regime", "the archive's own docket", "Wikipedia: no article", "the composition at the name" ] }, "conflict_log": [ { "rule": "D_pres vs channel", "result": "no cut: the KO carries every field and archive claim (35 and 68); the compression's bound met with no channel log" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F10 (GW's footer, no school) and LS-37 (no staff or school named) beside CAP-1-05 (the composition's 'Law School'): each composed with its source, sentences 6 and 28" }, { "rule": "N_c", "result": "no claim lowered by standing; F24 at snippet grade (script-rendered page); O195-04 a forecast at its grade (hypothesis); O729-01 attributed (the archive's account of the Copyright Office report); CAP-1-NN at the registry's grade; LS-28 the archive's reading, at its grade" }, { "rule": "C_ex", "result": "senses composed ⊇ senses in the ledgers: every ledger lineage cited in the KO" } ], "carried": { "archive": 68, "field": 35, "not_composed": {} } } }, "P": { "title": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation", "genre": "popup — the compression, AIO's interaction grammar (lede, headed clusters, bolded labels, card rail), composed from the v0.10 knowledge object in one claim space", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 from the v0.10 knowledge object; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is the Ethical Tech Initiative's database, on George Washington University's site, of ongoing and completed litigation involving AI, each case entered from the complaint forward whether or not a decision is published; still under development.", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F4", "F7", "F10", "LS-05", "LS-04", "LS-11" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "🗂️", "head": "What it holds", "items": [ { "label": "Unit:", "text": "a case, from the complaint forward; issued opinions in a companion database.", "claims": [ "F4", "F6", "LS-11", "LS-22", "LS-33" ] }, { "label": "Scope:", "text": "hiring, credit and sentencing algorithms to generative AI training and AI companion liability.", "claims": [ "F5", "LS-12", "LS-32" ] }, { "label": "Not stated:", "text": "count, jurisdictions, start date; no parties, authors or works named.", "claims": [ "LS-20", "LS-18", "LS-19", "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🏛️", "head": "Operator and addresses", "items": [ { "label": "Operator:", "text": "the Ethical Tech Initiative, an interdisciplinary collaboration; GW's footer, no school named.", "claims": [ "F2", "F9", "F10", "LS-15", "LS-37", "LS-30" ] }, { "label": "Second address:", "text": "etidail.com, script-built, on the card rail; absent from the census row.", "claims": [ "F23", "F24", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ] }, { "label": "Interface:", "text": "Scope, Guide, Credits, Suggestions; search filters, unread.", "claims": [ "F8", "LS-21", "LS-29", "LS-17", "LS-35", "LS-36" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📚", "head": "In the authorship census", "items": [ { "label": "Area:", "text": "governance, \"litigation on who or what can be an author\"; a peripheral comparator.", "claims": [ "LS-06", "LS-39", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-10", "LS-09", "LS-38", "LS-40" ] }, { "label": "Reading:", "text": "a docket-level record whose bearing on authorship runs through the authorship cases it holds; none shown.", "claims": [ "LS-28", "LS-24", "LS-25", "LS-26", "LS-27", "CAP-1-09" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "The law on who can be an author", "items": [ { "label": "Settled:", "text": "no statutory author without a human (Thaler v. Perlmutter, cert. denied 2 March 2026); the mediated zone unreached.", "claims": [ "O195-01", "O195-02" ] }, { "label": "Registration:", "text": "AI-assisted works may keep human authorship; no process evidence named.", "claims": [ "O729-01", "O729-02" ] }, { "label": "Reading:", "text": "a double enclosure, concealment forecast; authorship in compositional judgment.", "claims": [ "O195-03", "O195-04", "O195-06" ] }, { "label": "Names:", "text": "copyright attaches to legal names; accountability apart from authorial identity.", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02" ] }, { "label": "Cycle:", "text": "training suits years behind the taking; untested law maximally broad.", "claims": [ "O195-05", "O194-01", "O194-02", "O193-01" ] }, { "label": "Own docket:", "text": "the archive's court of record hears authorship and names; Docket No. 1 against the composition layer.", "claims": [ "O193-02", "O193-03", "O823-01" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🔎", "head": "Beside it, distinct", "items": [ { "label": "Fisher Phillips:", "text": "U.S. AI matters since 25 February 2021, for clients.", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ] }, { "label": "Charlotin:", "text": "decisions finding hallucinated content; 2246 cases; CC BY 4.0.", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ] }, { "label": "Hogan Lovells:", "text": "global AI case law; originality, inventorship, Thaler.", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📡", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Wikipedia:", "text": "no article under either name.", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ] }, { "label": "The Overview:", "text": "DAIL first of four trackers; \"Law School\" added; scope, companion and limit left out.", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-12" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "Does DAIL hold authorship cases, Thaler v. Perlmutter among them, and under what names does it record their parties?", "rests_on": [ "LS-28", "LS-25", "LS-35", "O195-01", "O940-01", "CAP-1-09" ], "modality": "interpretation (the census's reading; the Capture Registry); documented (#195 on the case); interpretation (#940)", "would_resolve": "a reading of the database's records (etidail.com, rendered) for copyright and authorship matters and of how each entry names its parties" }, { "question": "Is etidail.com the database itself, or a second edition of it?", "rests_on": [ "F23", "F24", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ], "modality": "documented (the page title; the card snippet); documented (the census row; the Capture Registry)", "would_resolve": "the page rendered with its script, or the Guide and Credits tabs of the GW page" }, { "question": "Which unit of George Washington University holds the Ethical Tech Initiative?", "rests_on": [ "F10", "F2", "LS-37", "CAP-1-05" ], "modality": "documented (the footer; the census's unchecked); self-description (the Initiative); documented (the Capture Registry)", "would_resolve": "the Initiative's About and Our Team pages" }, { "question": "How many cases does it hold, from which jurisdictions and since when?", "rests_on": [ "LS-20", "LS-18", "LS-19", "F8" ], "modality": "documented (not stated)", "would_resolve": "the Scope tab and the database's search" }, { "question": "Opacities", "rests_on": [ "F6", "F24", "LS-36" ], "modality": "documented; the companion database unread; the second address's text known by its card only", "would_resolve": "the companion opinions database and the rendered etidail.com" } ], "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it holds: litigation involving AI", "claims": [ "F3", "F24", "LS-05" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "method: from complaint forward", "claims": [ "F4", "LS-11", "LS-17", "LS-33", "CAP-1-04" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "scope", "claims": [ "F5", "LS-12", "LS-32", "CAP-1-08" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the companion database of opinions", "claims": [ "F6", "LS-22", "LS-36" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "limit: under development", "claims": [ "F7", "LS-23", "LS-31", "LS-34" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "name, operator and host", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F9", "F10", "LS-01", "LS-02", "LS-04", "LS-15", "LS-30", "LS-37", "CAP-1-05" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "interface and suggestions", "claims": [ "F8", "LS-21", "LS-29" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "a second address: etidail.com", "claims": [ "F23", "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "what its record keeps", "claims": [ "LS-13", "LS-14", "LS-16", "LS-20", "LS-18", "LS-19", "LS-24", "LS-25", "LS-26", "LS-27", "LS-35" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "in the authorship census", "claims": [ "LS-38", "LS-39", "LS-40", "LS-06", "LS-07", "LS-08", "LS-10", "LS-09", "LS-28", "CAP-1-09" ], "earliest": "LS" }, { "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ], "earliest": "B3" }, { "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F33" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "legal names and the attribution regime", "claims": [ "O940-01", "O940-02" ], "earliest": 940 }, { "lineage": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "claims": [ "O195-01", "O195-02", "O195-05", "O729-01", "O729-02" ], "earliest": 729 }, { "lineage": "the double enclosure", "claims": [ "O195-03", "O195-04", "O195-06" ], "earliest": 195 }, { "lineage": "litigation and its cycle", "claims": [ "O194-01", "O194-02", "O193-01" ], "earliest": 194 }, { "lineage": "the archive's own docket", "claims": [ "O193-02", "O193-03", "O823-01" ], "earliest": 193 }, { "lineage": "Wikipedia: no article", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ], "earliest": "B6" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-12" ], "earliest": "capture-registry" } ], "entity": "the archive's entity and the field's, one claim space (equal case): DAIL, the Ethical Tech Initiative's database of litigation involving AI, with the census's reading and the archive's account of the law on who can be an author", "body_words": 280 }, "P_B": { "title": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "popup — the compression from the field ledger alone (cards and Wikipedia's record)", "status": "composed 2026-11-01 from the field ledger alone; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is the Ethical Tech Initiative's database, on George Washington University's site, of ongoing and completed litigation involving AI, from complaint forward; still under development.", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F4", "F7", "F10" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "🗂️", "head": "What it holds", "items": [ { "label": "Unit:", "text": "a case from complaint forward; opinions in a companion database.", "claims": [ "F4", "F6" ] }, { "label": "Scope:", "text": "hiring, credit and sentencing algorithms to AI training and AI companion liability.", "claims": [ "F5" ] }, { "label": "Interface:", "text": "Scope, Guide, Credits, Suggestions.", "claims": [ "F8" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🏛️", "head": "Operator", "items": [ { "label": "Initiative:", "text": "an interdisciplinary collaboration of law, ethics, engineering and media.", "claims": [ "F2", "F9", "F1", "F10" ] }, { "label": "etidail.com:", "text": "a second address, script-built.", "claims": [ "F23", "F24" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🔎", "head": "Other trackers", "items": [ { "label": "Fisher Phillips:", "text": "U.S. matters since 25 February 2021.", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ] }, { "label": "Charlotin:", "text": "hallucination decisions; 2246 cases.", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ] }, { "label": "Hogan Lovells:", "text": "global AI case law; originality, inventorship.", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📡", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Wikipedia:", "text": "no article.", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "Opacities", "rests_on": [ "F6", "F23", "F24" ], "modality": "documented; script-rendered page known by title and card", "would_resolve": "the companion database and etidail.com rendered" } ], "rail": [ { "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ], "earliest": "B3" }, { "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F33" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32" ], "earliest": "B5" }, { "lineage": "Wikipedia: no article", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ], "earliest": "B6" }, { "lineage": "what it holds: litigation involving AI", "claims": [ "F3", "F24" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "method: from complaint forward", "claims": [ "F4" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "scope", "claims": [ "F5" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the companion database of opinions", "claims": [ "F6" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "limit: under development", "claims": [ "F7" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "name, operator and host", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F9", "F10" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "interface and suggestions", "claims": [ "F8" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "a second address: etidail.com", "claims": [ "F23" ], "earliest": "B4" } ], "entity": "the field's entity: the Ethical Tech Initiative's database of AI litigation, as its page, its second address's card and the trackers beside it give it", "body_words": 100 }, "KO_B": { "title": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "knowledge object", "status": "composed 2026-11-01; not frozen", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "text": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, a project of the Ethical Tech Initiative on George Washington University's site, presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics.", "claims": [ "F1", "F3", "F9", "F10" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "text": "It covers cases from complaint forward, as soon as its operator learns of them, whether or not they generate published decisions, and a companion database holds issued opinions.", "claims": [ "F4", "F6" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "text": "Its intended scope runs from algorithms used in hiring, credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability.", "claims": [ "F5" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 0, "text": "It is still under development and will continue to expand; its page offers Scope, Guide, Credits and Suggestions tabs.", "claims": [ "F7", "F8" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "text": "The Ethical Tech Initiative describes itself as an interdisciplinary collaboration where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship.", "claims": [ "F2" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 1, "text": "A second address, etidail.com, carries the database's name under the Initiative; its page is built by a script, and its search card describes ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence.", "claims": [ "F23", "F24" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 2, "text": "Fisher & Phillips LLP's AI Litigation Tracker covers litigation matters filed across all 50 states since 25 February 2021 that involve AI technologies, searchable by state, industry, type of claim and court, for the firm's clients.", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 2, "text": "Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, only where a court or tribunal found or implied reliance on it, and counted 2246 cases at its update of 31 October 2026.", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "text": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker monitors key AI-related cases under IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection and other laws in fourteen jurisdictions, as attorney advertising.", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F33" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 2, "text": "Its key issues include the originality of AI-generated articles and inventorship, and its insights report the UK Supreme Court's finding in Thaler's appeal that AI is not an inventor and Italy's AI law reinforcing human authorship.", "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 3, "text": "English Wikipedia has no article under either of the database's names, and no page contains the phrase \"Database of AI Litigation\".", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ] } ] }, "L_B": { "words": 318, "text": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, a project of the Ethical Tech Initiative on George Washington University's site, presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics. It covers cases from complaint forward, as soon as its operator learns of them, whether or not they generate published decisions, and a companion database holds issued opinions. Its intended scope runs from algorithms used in hiring, credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability. It is still under development and will continue to expand; its page offers Scope, Guide, Credits and Suggestions tabs. The Ethical Tech Initiative describes itself as an interdisciplinary collaboration where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship. A second address, etidail.com, carries the database's name under the Initiative; its page is built by a script, and its search card describes ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence. Fisher & Phillips LLP's AI Litigation Tracker covers litigation matters filed across all 50 states since 25 February 2021 that involve AI technologies, searchable by state, industry, type of claim and court, for the firm's clients. Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, only where a court or tribunal found or implied reliance on it, and counted 2246 cases at its update of 31 October 2026. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker monitors key AI-related cases under IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection and other laws in fourteen jurisdictions, as attorney advertising. Its key issues include the originality of AI-generated articles and inventorship, and its insights report the UK Supreme Court's finding in Thaler's appeal that AI is not an inventor and Italy's AI law reinforcing human authorship. English Wikipedia has no article under either of the database's names, and no page contains the phrase \"Database of AI Litigation\".", "note": "L_F(B), realized as KO_B (the field-only knowledge object), its sentences joined." }, "L_BA": { "words": 1236, "text": "DAIL, the Database of AI Litigation, is a database of ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics, kept by the Ethical Tech Initiative on George Washington University's site. It enters a case from the complaint forward, as soon as its operator learns of the case, whether or not the case generates a published decision, and it holds issued opinions in a companion database. Its intended scope runs from algorithms used in hiring, credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability, which places it under no single body of law: it is a record of copyright and authorship disputes only where its cases concern them. By its own statement it is still under development and will continue to expand, and its page gives no date of founding or of last update. The Ethical Tech Initiative describes itself as an interdisciplinary collaboration where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship, and it lists DAIL among its projects beside its work on reproductive data privacy. The page carries George Washington University's footer and names no school of the university and no staff; it states no licence and no access terms beyond the university's Terms of Use and Copyright links. A second address, etidail.com, serves a page titled with the database's name under the Initiative whose text is built by a script; its search card describes \"ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, including mach...\", and the census record holds only the GW Blogs address. The page shows Scope, Guide, Credits and Suggestions tabs and a set of search filters, and it takes suggestions of cases from its readers. It states no count of the cases it holds, no jurisdictions and no start date. Its page names no parties, authors or works, so whose authorship it keeps, under what name it holds a work and how it attributes an authorial function are not recorded. What it can answer is whether a known lawsuit involving AI is entered and how the case has run from the complaint forward, including cases without a published decision; it does not show how a court ruled on AI authorship in any named case, and it says nothing of pseudonymous or heteronymous authorship. The database's records, its companion database of opinions and the Initiative's About and Our Team pages were not read for this account. Other public records of AI litigation stand beside DAIL as distinct entities: Fisher & Phillips LLP's AI Litigation Tracker covers matters filed across all 50 states since 25 February 2021 that involve AI technologies such as generative AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking and call recording, searchable by state, industry, type of claim and court, and offered to the firm's clients as a tool for the trend. Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, typically fake citations; it admits only cases in which a court or tribunal found or implied reliance on such content, with some exceptions by its compiler's judgment, does not track every fake citation or use of AI in a filing, and counted 2246 cases, 1517 of them in the United States, at its update of 31 October 2026, under a CC BY 4.0 licence. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker, published as attorney advertising, monitors key AI-related cases under IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection and other laws in fourteen jurisdictions, with case descriptions, claims raised, summary judgments and key takeaways. The leesharks.com apparatus authorship census, which asks \"How is authorship made, named, distributed, attributed and sustained across persons, personas, collectives and machine participation, and what is lost when those relations are collapsed?\", admits DAIL as an aggregator under its area of boundary and governance, \"law, policy, certification and litigation on who or what can be an author\", as a peripheral comparator whose evidence is the litigation record and the catalogue. The census reads DAIL as a secondary legal strand, a docket-level record of disputes over AI whose bearing on how authorship is made and attributed runs through whatever authorship cases it holds; its saved page shows none, and the practices the disputes concern lie outside its record. Authorship and inventorship do appear among the records beside it: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's tracker indexes the originality of AI-generated articles and inventorship as key issues, and its insights report the UK Supreme Court's rejection of Thaler's appeal, finding AI not an inventor, and the reinforcement of human authorship in Italy's AI law. In the United States the human-authorship requirement was settled for works claimed to be generated without human authorship when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter on 2 March 2026, leaving intact the rule that an AI system cannot be a statutory author. The courts answered the question Thaler built by repeatedly disclaiming any human creative input, and did not reach how much human involvement suffices for machine-mediated works; under the Copyright Office's 2025 report on copyrightability, AI-assisted works may retain human authorship where a person contributes original expression, selection, arrangement, modification and responsibility, a position the archive finds abstract for naming no process evidence. The archive reads the settled doctrine as a double enclosure, generalized from the autonomous-machine test case to the dialogic craft, in which the machine laborer receives no ledger position and the human composer must choose between honest provenance and a full authorial claim; against it the archive proposes that authorship subsists in the exercise of compositional judgment over a work's coming-into-being. It forecasts that registration practice, by coupling the disclosure of machine contribution to its forfeiture, will yield concealment. The litigation over training runs on a parallel track and, on the archive's account, years behind the taking; law about machine meaning formalized without a litigated case is maximally broad, because no court has narrowed it, and the archive holds that the courts outside no longer convene those questions. A dispute reaches a court through civil names: the archive holds the civil name to be the atomic unit of attribution, to which copyright attaches, and holds legal accountability apart from exhaustive authorial identity, since a civil person may remain legally responsible for a work without being its only authorial function. The archive keeps a court of record of its own, whose power is its record and whose matters in dispute are authorship, names, classifications, erasures and the resolution of entities; its first docket is an authorship dispute with the composition layer, pleaded in the alternative, either that the attributed author is not the author and the resolution must be corrected or that the attributed author is the author and the authorship is unwaged labor. English Wikipedia has no article on DAIL under either of its names, and no page there contains the phrase \"Database of AI Litigation\". At the name on Google's AI Overview on 1 November 2026, a new address, the composition read the name as a kind, listed four trackers of AI litigation with DAIL first and its method near its own sentence, and closed by asking for a legal area or jurisdiction, copyright among them. The Capture Registry records that the composition named DAIL's host as George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative, a school no saved page names, carded the second address, and left out the database's scope, its companion database and its stated limit.", "rail": [], "note": "L(B ∪ A) in the equal-terms case (v0.10 §0.4), realized as the knowledge object (objects.KO); its rail is the compression's, by lineage." } }, "field": [ { "id": "B1", "card": "The George Washington University — DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative - GW Blogs", "fetched": "card; B1.html sha256 0093afaa693252fb, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T04:08:00Z (the census's fetch); refetched 2026-11-01T06:26:56Z; the census's own page gwu-dail--home, carried once", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B2", "card": "Fisher Phillips LLP — AI Litigation Tracker | Fisher Phillips LLP", "fetched": "card; B2.html sha256 769b2a8485277c6f, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:34Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B3", "card": "Damien Charlotin — AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin", "fetched": "card; B3.html sha256 cc6e6fecd84aa489, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:34Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B4", "card": "etidail.com — DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation", "fetched": "card; B4.html sha256 7f3bcfccae43548c, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:33Z; script-rendered (title only)", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B5", "card": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader — AI Litigation Case Law Tracker | Explore global AI-related cases | Hogan Lovells Cadwalader", "fetched": "card; B5.html sha256 3fb9e109aa454912, HTTP 200 at 2026-11-01T06:26:56Z", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D" }, { "id": "B6", "card": "Wikipedia — no article ('Database of AI Litigation'; 'DAIL')", "fetched": "wikipedia; B6-page-404.html sha256 7ef7dfc9ab883d5d, HTTP 404 at 2026-11-01T06:26:57Z–06:26:58Z", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R" } ], "field_claims": { "F1": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "page title and heading", "quote": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative", "claim": "the database's name, under the Ethical Tech Initiative's site title", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "name, operator and host", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F2": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "site header (the Initiative's description)", "quote": "We are an interdisciplinary collaboration: where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship.", "claim": "the operator describes itself as an interdisciplinary collaboration of law and ethics with computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "name, operator and host", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F3": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s1", "quote": "The Database of AI Litigation presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics.", "claim": "what the database holds: ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "what it holds: litigation involving AI", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F4": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s2", "quote": "It covers cases from complaint forward - as soon as we learn of them - whether or not they generate published decisions.", "claim": "the unit and method: a case entered from complaint forward, as soon as the operator learns of it, whether or not it generates a published decision", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "function", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "method: from complaint forward", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F5": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s3", "quote": "It is intended to be broad in scope, covering everything from algorithms used in hiring and credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability.", "claim": "the intended scope: from algorithms in hiring, credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": true, "lineage": "scope", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F6": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s4", "quote": "A companion database of issued opinions is available here .", "claim": "a companion database holds issued opinions", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the companion database of opinions", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F7": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s5", "quote": "While still under development, it will continue to expand over time.", "claim": "the stated limit: the database is still under development and will expand", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "limit: under development", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F8": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "tabs below the description", "quote": "Scope Guide Credits Suggestions", "claim": "the page's tabs: Scope, Guide, Credits, Suggestions", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "interface and suggestions", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F9": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "site menu, Projects", "quote": "Projects Initiatives DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation Reproductive Data Privacy", "claim": "DAIL is listed among the Initiative's projects, beside Reproductive Data Privacy", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "name, operator and host", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F10": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "footer", "quote": "Website Privacy Notice Contact GW Accessibility Terms of Use Copyright", "claim": "the page carries George Washington University's footer", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "name, operator and host", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 ddbcd76663e7c4b8…), whitespace-normalised", "also_origin": "own_page" }, "F11": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1 s1", "quote": "The AI Litigation Tracker provides a comprehensive view of litigation matters filed across all 50 states that involve the use of AI technologies, such as Gen AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking, call recording, and other AI tools.", "claim": "Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker: litigation matters filed across all 50 states involving AI technologies (Gen AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking, call recording, other AI tools)", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 573a26f666501035…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F12": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1 s2", "quote": "The tracker includes all matters filed since February 25, 2021.", "claim": "its period: all matters filed since 25 February 2021", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 573a26f666501035…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F13": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1 s3", "quote": "The tracker is searchable by state, industry, type of claim, and whether matters are filed in state or federal court.", "claim": "its search: by state, industry, type of claim and state or federal court", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 573a26f666501035…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F14": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1 s6", "quote": "For clients, it serves as a critical tool to understand the progressive nature of this litigation trend.", "claim": "its stated audience: the firm's clients", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "function", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 573a26f666501035…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F15": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "footer", "quote": "© 2026 Fisher & Phillips LLP. All Rights Reserved", "claim": "its operator: the law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 573a26f666501035…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F16": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "AI Hallucination Cases, ¶1", "quote": "This database tracks legal decisions … in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments.", "claim": "Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database: legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content, typically fake citations", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised; multi-part quote joined by ' … ', each part checked" }, "F17": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "AI Hallucination Cases, note 1", "quote": "Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or tribunal has explicitly found (or implied) that a party relied on hallucinated content or material.", "claim": "its admission rule: only cases where the court or tribunal found or implied reliance on hallucinated content", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F18": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "AI Hallucination Cases, ¶1", "quote": "It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings.", "claim": "its stated limit: it does not track all fake citations or all use of AI in court filings", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F19": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "AI Hallucination Cases, ¶2", "quote": "While seeking to be exhaustive (2246 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge.", "claim": "its count and limit: 2246 cases so far, a work in progress", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "2026-10-31 (the page's 'Last updated')", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F20": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "note 1, the exception", "quote": "As an exception, the database also covers some judicial decisions where AI use was alleged but not confirmed. This is a judgment call on my part.", "claim": "its exception: some decisions where AI use was alleged and not confirmed, by its compiler's judgment", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F21": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "date and licence block", "quote": "Last updated: 31 October 2026 … CC BY 4.0 — free to reuse, including commercially, with attribution.", "claim": "last updated 31 October 2026; licensed CC BY 4.0", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "2026-10-31 (the page's 'Last updated')", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised; multi-part quote joined by ' … ', each part checked" }, "F22": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "filters: State, Party", "quote": "USA (1517) … Lawyer (887) … Pro Se Litigant (1296)", "claim": "its holdings by filter: 1517 US cases; 887 involving lawyers and 1296 pro se litigants", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "date": "2026-10-31 (the page's 'Last updated')", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 0205843985fe316f…), whitespace-normalised; multi-part quote joined by ' … ', each part checked" }, "F23": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "page title (the only text the page serves without a script)", "quote": "DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative", "claim": "a second address, etidail.com, carries the database's name under the Ethical Tech Initiative", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "a second address: etidail.com", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 5cc1c2dd33d47136…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F24": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "card snippet (T's rail, card 4)", "quote": "DAIL - the Database of AI Litigation This database presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, including mach...", "claim": "the second address's text, as the card gives it: ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, 'including mach...'", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it holds: litigation involving AI", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "the card snippet as the registry's cite_list carries it (card 4), whitespace-normalised" }, "F25": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "page head", "quote": "Explore our global digital solution for monitoring AI-related cases across key jurisdictions.", "claim": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker: a global solution for monitoring AI-related cases across key jurisdictions", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F26": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1", "quote": "Our AI Litigation Case Law Tracker monitors key AI-related cases involving IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection, and other laws across global jurisdictions.", "claim": "its scope: key AI-related cases under IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection and other laws, across global jurisdictions", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F27": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "page body ¶1", "quote": "Explore the tracker to find case descriptions, claims raised, summary judgments, key takeaways, and other resources.", "claim": "what an entry holds: case descriptions, claims raised, summary judgments, key takeaways", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F28": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "filter: Jurisdiction", "quote": "Australia China Denmark EU EU (CJEU) France Germany India Italy Japan Netherlands South Korea United Kingdom United States of America", "claim": "its jurisdictions: fourteen, from Australia to the United States", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F29": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "filter: Key issues", "quote": "AI-generated article originality", "claim": "a key issue it indexes: the originality of an AI-generated article", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F30": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "filter: Key issues", "quote": "Inventorship", "claim": "a key issue it indexes: inventorship", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F31": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "related insights", "quote": "UK Supreme Court rejects Thaler’s appeal and finds AI not an inventor", "claim": "a related insight: the UK Supreme Court found AI not an inventor in Thaler's appeal", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F32": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "related insights", "quote": "Copyright provisions in the new Italian AI-law: reinforcing human authorship and text and data mining (TDM) exceptions", "claim": "a related insight: Italy's AI law reinforces human authorship", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F33": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "footer", "quote": "This website is operated by Hogan Lovells Cadwalader International LLP … Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.", "claim": "its operator, the law firm Hogan Lovells Cadwalader International LLP, and the page's stated character as attorney advertising", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "date": "undated (the page as fetched 2026-11-01)", "pool": "B_D", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B5.txt (sha256 30e88c58619ce4ee…), whitespace-normalised; multi-part quote joined by ' … ', each part checked" }, "F34": { "source": "B6", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "the article page for the name (HTTP 404)", "quote": "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.", "claim": "English Wikipedia has no article titled 'Database of AI Litigation' (nor 'DAIL')", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "Wikipedia: no article", "date": "2026-11-01 (the response)", "pool": "B_R", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6-page-404.txt (sha256 4e21a7b6381e1fa0…), B6-search.txt (sha256 e23114f0187787e6…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F35": { "source": "B6", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "full-text search for the quoted name", "quote": "There were no results matching the query.", "claim": "no English Wikipedia page contains the phrase 'Database of AI Litigation'", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "Wikipedia: no article", "date": "2026-11-01 (the response)", "pool": "B_R", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6-page-404.txt (sha256 4e21a7b6381e1fa0…), B6-search.txt (sha256 e23114f0187787e6…), whitespace-normalised" } }, "field_sources": { "B1": "The George Washington University — DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative - GW Blogs", "B2": "Fisher Phillips LLP — AI Litigation Tracker | Fisher Phillips LLP", "B3": "Damien Charlotin — AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin", "B4": "etidail.com — DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation", "B5": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader — AI Litigation Case Law Tracker | Explore global AI-related cases | Hogan Lovells Cadwalader", "B6": "Wikipedia — no article ('Database of AI Litigation'; 'DAIL')" }, "delta": { "T_vs_LB": "At 'Database of AI Litigation' (T1, five cards: B1–B5, all fetched, B4 a script-rendered page known by its title and card; 152 words in the answer body, five markers in four groups, a closing offer and a disclaimer) the composition frames the name as a kind, 'The primary dedicated public resources and trackers for artificial intelligence litigation include:', and gives four bullets, DAIL first. Composed from its cards: DAIL's definition and method at the source's grain, 'covers ongoing and completed AI-related cases starting from the initial complaint onward—regardless of whether they produce published decisions' (B1 F3, F4, the 'as soon as we learn of them' left out), with two markers; the Ethical Tech Initiative (B1 F1); Charlotin's database as decisions where parties 'relied on generative AI-fabricated case law or hallucinations' (B3 F16, F17); Fisher Phillips's 'all 50 states' and its tools (B2 F11), its date at the month (F12: 'since February 25, 2021'); Hogan Lovells's global scope with copyright, IP and data protection as 'data privacy' (B5 F25, F26). Available, not composed (B_D): DAIL's scope, from hiring, credit and sentencing algorithms to AI training and AI companion liability (B1 F5); its companion database of opinions (F6); its stated limit (F7); the Initiative's description of itself (F2) and its other projects (F9); the second address on card 4 as an address of DAIL (B4 F23), which T carries only as a card; Charlotin's limit and exception (F18, F20), count (F19, F22) and licence (F21); Fisher Phillips's search and audience (F13, F14) and its notetaking and call recording (F11); Hogan Lovells's media and consumer law (F26), its entry contents (F27), its fourteen jurisdictions (F28), its character as attorney advertising (F33), and its authorship and inventorship issues and insights (F29–F32). Limit dropped: DAIL's 'While still under development' (F7), and Charlotin's 'does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings' (F18). Outside the cards: 'Law School' in 'George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative' (no saved page names a school; the card's URL path is law-eti; the Capture Registry records it, CAP-1-05); 'employment' among Fisher Phillips's categories, which its page does not list (F11), and 'employment discrimination' in the closing; 'sanctions' in Charlotin's bullet, which the page carries as a column of outcomes; 'primary' and 'dedicated' in the frame. Substituted reading: the name read as a category; the address, DAIL's own name, composed as a list of the kind it names (CAP-1-01, CAP-1-03); the composition's entity is the class of AI litigation trackers, DAIL its first member. Composed without attribution: none; every bullet carries markers to the cards. Content replaced by use: the closing offer, 'If you are looking for cases in a specific legal area … let me know and I can point you to the most relevant tracker.'", "T_vs_LB_reading": "v0.10 §0.5: the first diff is ontological at the level of the frame. T and the field agree on what DAIL is; T composes DAIL as one member of a kind and keeps of it the sentence that defines its unit, leaving out the sentences that bound it: the breadth of its scope, its companion record of opinions and its own statement that it is incomplete. It adds a school to its host. The field's own authorship matters (Hogan Lovells's originality and inventorship issues) stay off the composition, which offers copyright as an area for the user to choose.", "LB_vs_LBA": "Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the census's question of how authorship is made, named and attributed and what is lost when its relations are collapsed (LS-38), its admission of DAIL under governance as a peripheral comparator (LS-06, LS-07, LS-39, LS-40), and its record field by field: whose authorship DAIL keeps, under what name, how it attributes an authorial function, all 'not recorded' (LS-13, LS-14, LS-16); what it answers and does not (LS-24–LS-27); its count, geography and period unstated (LS-18–LS-20); its unread parts (LS-35–LS-37); and the archive's reading, a docket-level record whose bearing on authorship runs through the authorship cases it holds (LS-28). On the class the census sources for it, litigation on who or what can be an author: the litigated state of the human-authorship requirement and its unreached mediated zone (O195-01, O195-02), the registration position and its limit (O729-01, O729-02), the archive's reading of the doctrine as a double enclosure, its forecast of concealment and its proposed standard (O195-03, O195-04, O195-06), the civil name as the unit of attribution to which copyright attaches and accountability held apart from authorial identity (O940-01, O940-02); on litigation involving AI: the training-side litigation as a parallel track and years behind the taking (O195-05, O194-01), uncycled law and the courts that no longer convene the questions (O194-02, O193-01); and the archive's own court of record and its first authorship docket (O193-02, O193-03, O823-01). The Capture Registry's findings at the address enter as the archive's claims about the composition (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-12). Not surfaced: every archive source (no card or body name is the archive's). The field's Hogan Lovells authorship issues (F29–F32), which T leaves out, stand beside the archive's account of that law in one section (§4.7 coordinating act, logged). The KO opens with a mixed sentence (field and record), and no KO_B sentence survives at ≥ 0.95 (measure).", "alignment": { "T1_cards_claims": [ "F1", "F10", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15", "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F2", "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F3", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F8", "F9" ], "T1_composed": [ "F1", "F3", "F4", "F11", "F12", "F16", "F17", "F25", "F26" ], "T1_composed_note": "composed at the card's grain or near it, with markers; F12 at the month; F26 in part (copyright, IP, data protection, commercial)", "T1_outside_cards": [ "'Law School' (T1-2)", "'employment' (T1-5) and 'employment discrimination' (T1-7)", "'sanctions' (T1-4)", "'primary' and 'dedicated' (T1-1)" ], "rule": "alignment by field claim id: composed (the claim's content in T at the card's grain or near it), outside the cards (T content no field claim states), available not composed (the rest of B_D)" } }, "kernel": [ { "K": "K1", "claim": "`LS-01`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K2", "claim": "`LS-02`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K3", "claim": "`LS-03`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "a second address: etidail.com", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F23/F24 carry the second address the record does not", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K4", "claim": "`LS-04`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K5", "claim": "`LS-05`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K6", "claim": "`LS-06`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K7", "claim": "`LS-07`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K8", "claim": "`LS-08`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K9", "claim": "`LS-09`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K10", "claim": "`LS-10`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K11", "claim": "`LS-11`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "method: from complaint forward", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K12", "claim": "`LS-12`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "scope", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K13", "claim": "`LS-13`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field states what DAIL holds by scope, never whose authorship)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K14", "claim": "`LS-14`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K15", "claim": "`LS-15`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "name, operator and host", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K16", "claim": "`LS-16`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K17", "claim": "`LS-17`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "interface and suggestions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K18", "claim": "`LS-18`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K19", "claim": "`LS-19`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K20", "claim": "`LS-20`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K21", "claim": "`LS-21`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "interface and suggestions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K22", "claim": "`LS-22`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "method: from complaint forward", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K23", "claim": "`LS-23`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "limit: under development", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K24", "claim": "`LS-24`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K25", "claim": "`LS-25`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K26", "claim": "`LS-26`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K27", "claim": "`LS-27`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K28", "claim": "`LS-28`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (no field claim reads DAIL for the authorship cases it holds)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K29", "claim": "`LS-29`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "interface and suggestions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K30", "claim": "`LS-30`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "name, operator and host", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K31", "claim": "`LS-31`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "limit: under development", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K32", "claim": "`LS-32`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "scope", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K33", "claim": "`LS-33`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "method: from complaint forward", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K34", "claim": "`LS-34`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "limit: under development", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K35", "claim": "`LS-35`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K36", "claim": "`LS-36`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K37", "claim": "`LS-37`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what its record keeps", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K38", "claim": "`LS-38`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K39", "claim": "`LS-39`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K40", "claim": "`LS-40`", "source": "leesharks.com authorship census record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K41", "claim": "`CAP-1-01`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K42", "claim": "`CAP-1-02`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K43", "claim": "`CAP-1-03`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K44", "claim": "`CAP-1-04`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K45", "claim": "`CAP-1-05`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: T1-2 'George Washington University Law School's Ethical Tech Initiative' against F1, F2, F10 (no school named)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K46", "claim": "`CAP-1-06`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K47", "claim": "`CAP-1-07`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "a second address: etidail.com", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K48", "claim": "`CAP-1-08`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F5, F6, F7 (scope, companion database, limit) absent from T", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K49", "claim": "`CAP-1-09`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "in the authorship census", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K50", "claim": "`CAP-1-10`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K51", "claim": "`CAP-1-11`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K52", "claim": "`CAP-1-12`", "source": "Capture Registry", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K53", "claim": "`O195-01`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field names Thaler only as a UK inventorship insight, F31)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K54", "claim": "`O195-02`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K55", "claim": "`O195-03`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the double enclosure", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the doctrine's reading)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K56", "claim": "`O195-04`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "hypothesis", "sense": "the double enclosure", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K57", "claim": "`O195-05`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "litigation and its cycle", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K58", "claim": "`O195-06`", "source": "#195", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the double enclosure", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K59", "claim": "`O940-01`", "source": "#940", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "legal names and the attribution regime", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K60", "claim": "`O940-02`", "source": "#940", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "legal names and the attribution regime", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K61", "claim": "`O729-01`", "source": "#729", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K62", "claim": "`O729-02`", "source": "#729", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the law the litigation made: who can be an author", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K63", "claim": "`O194-01`", "source": "#194", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "litigation and its cycle", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K64", "claim": "`O194-02`", "source": "#194", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "litigation and its cycle", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K65", "claim": "`O193-01`", "source": "#193", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "litigation and its cycle", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K66", "claim": "`O193-02`", "source": "#193", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the archive's own docket", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K67", "claim": "`O193-03`", "source": "#193", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the archive's own docket", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K68", "claim": "`O823-01`", "source": "#823", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the archive's own docket", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none", "resolver": "a later capture at 'Database of AI Litigation' (ADDR-c15fe760095a) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" } ], "kernel_T": [ { "claim": "F5", "note": "the scope sentence (hiring, credit, sentencing, AI training, AI companion liability), on card 1, absent from T" }, { "claim": "F6", "note": "the companion database of issued opinions, on card 1, absent" }, { "claim": "F7", "note": "the stated limit, 'still under development', absent" }, { "claim": "F18", "note": "Charlotin's limit, that the database does not track every fake citation or use of AI in filings, absent" }, { "claim": "F29", "note": "Hogan Lovells's authorship and inventorship issues (F29–F32) absent; T names copyright and IP among its areas" }, { "claim": "F12", "note": "'since February 25, 2021' composed as 'since February 2021'" } ], "ledger": { "archive": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/dail/ledger-archive.json", "field": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/dail/field.json", "selection": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/traversal/dail/", "config": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/panel/configs/dail.json", "intake": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/", "audit": null }, "ontology": { "composition": "equal", "composition_note": "equal-terms case (v0.10 §0.9, §4.1): one claim space; the field's and the archive's claims ordered together by the entity's dependency and by genealogy within each sense; nothing translated; the other trackers on the rail composed as distinct entities beside DAIL (collision), never as senses of its name; F29–F32 (a distinct tracker's authorship issues) held together with the archive's account of that law in one section (logged)", "case": { "value": "equal", "statement": "The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. The census record describes DAIL from its own page, each evidence field with basis 'operator', and answers for it the census's question of how authorship is made, named and attributed; its reading, ls_reading, takes DAIL as a docket-level record whose bearing on authorship runs through whatever authorship cases it holds, and finds none on the saved page. No deposit names DAIL. The deposits bear on the class the census sources for it (litigation on who or what can be an author) and on litigation involving AI, adding senses on the field's own object: the law that litigation made on the human-authorship requirement and its reading as a double enclosure (#195, #729), legal names as the unit of attribution (#940), litigation's cycle (#194, #193) and the archive's own docket of authorship disputes (#193, #823). No archive text contests what DAIL is, and the field holds the ontology; ρ = extends, the equal-terms case.", "loci": [ { "dep": "LS", "locus": "census.json rows[slug == 'gwu-dail'].ls_reading", "quote": "The archive reads DAIL as a secondary legal strand: a docket-level record of disputes over AI from complaint forward, whose bearing on how authorship is made and attributed runs through whatever authorship cases it holds; the saved page shows none, and the practices the disputes concern lie outside its record." }, { "dep": "LS", "locus": "census.json areas.governance", "quote": "Boundary and governance: law, policy, certification and litigation on who or what can be an author" }, { "dep": 195, "locus": "Thesis, stated for the record (line 26)", "quote": "It argues that current doctrine has misclassified machine-mediated composition by generalizing from the autonomous-machine test case to the dialogic craft. The result is a double enclosure: the machine laborer receives no ledger position at all, while the human composer is forced to choose between honest provenance and full authorial claim." }, { "dep": 940, "locus": "§1 (line 79)", "quote": "A civil name is the atomic unit of attribution across the systems that govern legitimacy in scholarly, literary, institutional, and platform-mediated production. … Copyright attaches to legal names." }, { "dep": "capture-registry", "locus": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101, findings[3]", "quote": "The census reads DAIL for whatever authorship cases it holds and finds none on the saved page; the composition's closing names copyright as one area the user might choose." } ] }, "E_F": { "type": "C (public entity: a database of litigation involving AI, kept by a university-hosted ethics initiative)", "definition": "the Database of AI Litigation (DAIL), on the Ethical Tech Initiative's GW Blogs site, an interdisciplinary collaboration under George Washington University's footer: ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics, each case from complaint forward whether or not it generates a published decision, broad in scope from hiring, credit and sentencing algorithms to generative AI training and AI companion liability, with a companion database of issued opinions; still under development; a second address, etidail.com, under its name; one of several public records of AI litigation (Fisher Phillips's tracker, Charlotin's hallucination cases database, Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's case law tracker), each a distinct entity; no Wikipedia article (B1–B6)", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F10", "F23", "F34" ] }, "E_A": { "definition": "the same database, in the leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record and the archive's deposits: a database of litigation involving AI whose unit is a case from complaint forward; admitted to the census under governance (law, policy, certification and litigation on who or what can be an author) as a peripheral comparator; whose record names no parties, authors or works, so that whose authorship it keeps, under what name and with what authorial function are not recorded; read by the archive as a docket-level record whose bearing on authorship runs through the authorship cases it holds, none shown on its page; a record of the kind of dispute through which the human-authorship requirement was settled (Thaler v. Perlmutter), which the archive reads as a double enclosure; keyed, as every court record is, to civil names, the archive's atomic unit of attribution; one record of the litigation cycle the archive finds absent from the law of machine meaning, beside which the archive keeps a court of record of its own for authorship and names; composed at its name as the first member of a kind, its host given a school no saved page names (Capture Registry, 2026-11-01)", "claims": [ "LS-05", "LS-11", "LS-06", "LS-39", "LS-07", "LS-13", "LS-28", "O195-01", "O195-03", "O940-01", "O194-02", "O193-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-05" ], "defining_papers": [ 940, 195, 729, 194, 193, 823 ], "defining_records": [ "leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record (census.json rows[slug == 'gwu-dail'], organizing_question, areas, anchor, admission_rule; rendered https://www.leesharks.com/apparatus/aggregators/gwu-dail/; editor Lee Sharks, compiled and revised 2026-11-01, schema 1.1)", "Capture Registry database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101 (OBS-67539a81c4ed)" ], "defining_papers_note": "#940 and #1722 are the census's anchors: #940 admitted at §0 and §1 (legal accountability; the civil name as the unit of attribution); #1722 read at Part One, Part Two, Part Three §4 and Part Eight, and not admitted (no passage applies its categories to litigation records or to the law on authorship)." }, "rho": { "value": "extends", "status": "read from the census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the entity's classes (§1.2a); no deposit names the entity", "statement": "The archive reads DAIL as its page presents it and adds, on the field's own object: the census's question of how authorship is made, named and attributed, with the record's answers (no parties, authors or works named; whose authorship it keeps not recorded) and its reading (a docket-level record whose bearing on authorship runs through the authorship cases it holds); the law litigation made on who can be an author, read as a double enclosure (#195, #729); legal names as the unit to which copyright attaches (#940); the litigation cycle (#194, #193); and the archive's own docket for authorship and names (#193, #823).", "claims": [ "LS-28", "LS-13", "LS-38", "O195-01", "O195-03", "O729-01", "O940-01", "O194-02", "O193-02", "O823-01" ], "guard": "ρ = extends claims an addition and no more: the archive's claims do not make the field's sources wrong at their dates. The class claims are claims on the classes the field and the record source (records of AI litigation: F3, F11, F16, F26, LS-05, LS-08, LS-10; litigation on who or what can be an author: LS-06, LS-39, the field's F29–F32 for a distinct tracker), never on DAIL by the composer's judgment: no sentence says DAIL holds Thaler v. Perlmutter or any authorship case.", "considered": [ { "value": "constructs", "rejected": "the archive does not read DAIL as made by reception; its record takes DAIL's own page as its account" }, { "value": "revises", "rejected": "the entity is not the archive's own; the archive has no earlier statement of it to keep, narrow or withdraw" } ] }, "translation": [ { "lineage": "name, operator and host", "field_claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F9", "F10" ], "received": "F1 (B1, page title and heading): \"DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative\"; F2 (B1, site header (the Initiative's description)): \"We are an interdisciplinary collaboration: where law and ethics meet computer science and engineering, media and public affairs, and social entrepreneurship.\"; F9 (B1, site menu, Projects): \"Projects Initiatives DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation Reproductive Data Privacy\"; F10 (B1, footer): \"Website Privacy Notice Contact GW Accessibility Terms of Use Copyright\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-01, LS-02, LS-04, LS-15, LS-30, LS-37, CAP-1-05", "archive_claims": [ "LS-01", "LS-02", "LS-04", "LS-15", "LS-30", "LS-37", "CAP-1-05" ] }, { "lineage": "what it holds: litigation involving AI", "field_claims": [ "F3", "F24" ], "received": "F3 (B1, DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s1): \"The Database of AI Litigation presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence and related topics.\"; F24 (B4, card snippet (T's rail, card 4)): \"DAIL - the Database of AI Litigation This database presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, including mach...\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-05", "archive_claims": [ "LS-05" ] }, { "lineage": "method: from complaint forward", "field_claims": [ "F4" ], "received": "F4 (B1, DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s2): \"It covers cases from complaint forward - as soon as we learn of them - whether or not they generate published decisions.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-11, LS-17, LS-33, CAP-1-04", "archive_claims": [ "LS-11", "LS-17", "LS-33", "CAP-1-04" ] }, { "lineage": "scope", "field_claims": [ "F5" ], "received": "F5 (B1, DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s3): \"It is intended to be broad in scope, covering everything from algorithms used in hiring and credit and criminal sentencing decisions to generative AI training and AI companion liability.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-12, LS-32, CAP-1-08", "archive_claims": [ "LS-12", "LS-32", "CAP-1-08" ] }, { "lineage": "the companion database of opinions", "field_claims": [ "F6" ], "received": "F6 (B1, DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s4): \"A companion database of issued opinions is available here .\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-22, LS-36", "archive_claims": [ "LS-22", "LS-36" ] }, { "lineage": "limit: under development", "field_claims": [ "F7" ], "received": "F7 (B1, DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation, ¶1 s5): \"While still under development, it will continue to expand over time.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-23, LS-31, LS-34", "archive_claims": [ "LS-23", "LS-31", "LS-34" ] }, { "lineage": "interface and suggestions", "field_claims": [ "F8" ], "received": "F8 (B1, tabs below the description): \"Scope Guide Credits Suggestions\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-21, LS-29", "archive_claims": [ "LS-21", "LS-29" ] }, { "lineage": "another record: Fisher Phillips's AI Litigation Tracker", "field_claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ], "received": "F11 (B2, page body ¶1 s1): \"The AI Litigation Tracker provides a comprehensive view of litigation matters filed across all 50 states that involve the use of AI technologies, such as Gen AI, resume screeners, electronic monitoring, notetaking, call recording, and other AI tools.\"; F12 (B2, page body ¶1 s2): \"The tracker includes all matters filed since February 25, 2021.\"; F13 (B2, page body ¶1 s3): \"The tracker is searchable by state, industry, type of claim, and whether matters are filed in state or federal court.\"; F14 (B2, page body ¶1 s6): \"For clients, it serves as a critical tool to understand the progressive nature of this litigation trend.\"; F15 (B2, footer): \"© 2026 Fisher & Phillips LLP. All Rights Reserved\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received, no archive claim in its lineage", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "another record: the AI Hallucination Cases database", "field_claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ], "received": "F16 (B3, AI Hallucination Cases, ¶1): \"This database tracks legal decisions … in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments.\"; F17 (B3, AI Hallucination Cases, note 1): \"Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or tribunal has explicitly found (or implied) that a party relied on hallucinated content or material.\"; F18 (B3, AI Hallucination Cases, ¶1): \"It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings.\"; F19 (B3, AI Hallucination Cases, ¶2): \"While seeking to be exhaustive (2246 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge.\"; F20 (B3, note 1, the exception): \"As an exception, the database also covers some judicial decisions where AI use was alleged but not confirmed. This is a judgment call on my part.\"; F21 (B3, date and licence block): \"Last updated: 31 October 2026 … CC BY 4.0 — free to reuse, including commercially, with attribution.\"; F22 (B3, filters: State, Party): \"USA (1517) … Lawyer (887) … Pro Se Litigant (1296)\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received, no archive claim in its lineage", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "a second address: etidail.com", "field_claims": [ "F23" ], "received": "F23 (B4, page title (the only text the page serves without a script)): \"DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside LS-03, CAP-1-06, CAP-1-07", "archive_claims": [ "LS-03", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07" ] }, { "lineage": "another record: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker", "field_claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F33" ], "received": "F25 (B5, page head): \"Explore our global digital solution for monitoring AI-related cases across key jurisdictions.\"; F26 (B5, page body ¶1): \"Our AI Litigation Case Law Tracker monitors key AI-related cases involving IP, copyright, media, commercial, consumer, data protection, and other laws across global jurisdictions.\"; F27 (B5, page body ¶1): \"Explore the tracker to find case descriptions, claims raised, summary judgments, key takeaways, and other resources.\"; F28 (B5, filter: Jurisdiction): \"Australia China Denmark EU EU (CJEU) France Germany India Italy Japan Netherlands South Korea United Kingdom United States of America\"; F33 (B5, footer): \"This website is operated by Hogan Lovells Cadwalader International LLP … Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received, no archive claim in its lineage", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "authorship and inventorship in the field's records", "field_claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32" ], "received": "F29 (B5, filter: Key issues): \"AI-generated article originality\"; F30 (B5, filter: Key issues): \"Inventorship\"; F31 (B5, related insights): \"UK Supreme Court rejects Thaler’s appeal and finds AI not an inventor\"; F32 (B5, related insights): \"Copyright provisions in the new Italian AI-law: reinforcing human authorship and text and data mining (TDM) exceptions\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received, no archive claim in its lineage", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "Wikipedia: no article", "field_claims": [ "F34", "F35" ], "received": "F34 (B6, the article page for the name (HTTP 404)): \"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.\"; F35 (B6, full-text search for the quoted name): \"There were no results matching the query.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received, no archive claim in its lineage", "archive_claims": [] } ], "receiving_texts": "equal-terms case: every field claim composed as received, beside the archive claims it stands with" }, "measure": { "rule": "v0.10 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (computed as apply_v09.py does: difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence)", "v0.9": { "surviving": 0, "of": 11, "positions": [ null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null ] }, "opening_run": { "rule": "v0.10 §5.10 (equal-terms case): the field-only KO's sentences as the KO's opening run in their own order", "breach": false }, "blocks": { "rule": "v0.10 §4.1 (equal-terms case): the KO does not open with the field as a block or close with the archive as one; sentences typed by the ledgers of the claims they cite (F field-only, A archive-only, M both)", "sequence": "MMMMFMMMAAAAFFFAAFAAAAAAAFAA", "field_only_head": 0, "archive_only_tail": 2, "breach": false }, "max_similarity": [ 0.455, 0.811, 0.694, 0.573, 0.826, 0.424, 0.66, 0.668, 0.755, 0.411, 0.898 ], "ko_sentence_1_max_similarity_to_KO_B": 0.455 }, "homonyms": { "names": [], "basis": "The census row carries no disambiguation field. No card is a homonym and T composes no other entity under DAIL's name. The reached kind is a collision (Capture Registry, per_dim.reached 'collision'): the composition reads the descriptive name as a kind and lists DAIL first among four records of AI litigation, the other three distinct entities with names of their own. etidail.com (card 4) carries DAIL's own name and is an address of the entity, recorded as such. 'DAIL' is matched case-sensitively in the archive's string pass so that the Irish Dáil does not enter; neither the field nor the census names it.", "distinct_entities": [ "Fisher & Phillips LLP's AI Litigation Tracker (B2, card 2), a law firm's tracker of U.S. AI litigation since 25 February 2021: a distinct record of the same kind", "Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (B3, card 3), a researcher's database of decisions finding hallucinated content: a distinct record, of decisions only", "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's AI Litigation Case Law Tracker (B5, card 5), a law firm's global AI case law tracker: a distinct record, holding authorship and inventorship matters of its own (F29–F32)", "the Ethical Tech Initiative, DAIL's operator (F1, F2), an interdisciplinary collaboration distinct from the database; George Washington University, whose site and footer carry it (F10), an institution distinct from both; 'George Washington University Law School', named by T and on no saved page (CAP-1-05)", "the companion database of issued opinions (F6), a record held beside DAIL, unread", "Thaler v. Perlmutter, the case through which the human-authorship requirement was settled (#195), and Thaler's UK inventorship appeal (F31): litigation, distinct from any record of it; no source says DAIL holds either", "the archive's court of record, r.30 THE RUBY MOOT (#193), and its Docket No. 1 (#823): the archive's own record of authorship disputes, distinct from DAIL", "Neighbours in the census (rows composed the same day under the same brief, paths not checked here): Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (the U.S. Copyright Office, copyright-office-ai) and the Authors Guild's Human Authored Certification (authors-guild-human-authored), the census's other governance rows" ] }, "notes": [ "One address, Google AI Overview (expanded), signed out, incognito, 2026-11-01: database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101 (OBS-67539a81c4ed, ADDR-c15fe760095a, AXN:0B90.CAPTURE.🔼🕕🔼🌗⚖️🛸), five cards, 152 words in the answer body with a closing offer and a disclaimer, five markers in four groups. A NEW address (CAP-1-10); the census record was compiled the same night and no card cites it. Surface by the operator's default of 2026-10-01; the paste is headed 'AI Mode Conversation', the Overview expanded (operator, 2026-10-18).", "Fetching: every card fetched with curl and the census agent 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)' on 2026-11-01 between 06:26 and 06:27 UTC, raw and text with sha256 in field.json; text extracted by stripping scripts, styles, noscript and svg and keeping the words. Card URLs: B1 the census's own page (the card's title and snippet are its own; copied from the census's saved copy, refetched for comparison); B2, B3 and B5 by WebSearch on title and site; B4 from the card's site. No source refused the agent.", "Script-rendered: B4, etidail.com, serves an empty application shell whose only text is its title; recorded so, the card's snippet standing as its text (F24). https://www.etidail.com/ fails certificate verification (the certificate does not name the www host); not fetched with verification disabled. The script bundle was not read.", "Wikipedia: no article under 'Database of AI Litigation' or 'DAIL' (raw and rendered, HTTP 404, no redirect) and no page containing the phrase (full-text search, HTTP 200, no results): recorded as F34, F35, in B_R.", "Card snippets: the registry's cite_list carries site, title and snippet for each card; the snippets ledgered are those (the same text the paste renders at the end of the transcript).", "The archive subset: no archive text names DAIL, the Database of AI Litigation or etidail (D 0, R 0). The first class (records of AI litigation, field- and record-sourced) returned no string candidate. The second (litigation on who or what can be an author, record-sourced: the census's area 'governance') returned 195 O-class candidates in 76 deposits, almost all on the archive's practice of withholding a legal name, which is a heteronym convention and no claim on the law of authorship; admitted by reading: #195 (the human-authorship requirement and its reading), #940 (the census's anchor, at §0 and §1) and #729 (the registration position; #1369, a later version of the same packet, grouped with it as one lineage). The hop from these (33 candidates) admitted #194 (litigation and uncycled law), #193 (the archive's court of record) and #823 (its first docket). #1722, the census's other anchor, was read at its parts on institutions and standing and the four questions, and not admitted. The blog and Medium were not traversed (the traversal reads deposit texts).", "Census fields against the fetched sources: no census field is contradicted by a fetched source. The census row records one address (url, the GW Blogs page); the field carries a second under the database's name, etidail.com (card 4), which the census does not record (the Capture Registry says so, CAP-1-07). The census's evidence quote for 'companion' keeps the census text's 'available here .', which the refetched text gives as 'available here.'; the quote is verbatim against the census's saved text. The GW page's links (saved HTML) carry addresses for the companion opinions database (blogs.gwu.edu/law-eti/opinions-database/), the Credits and Suggestions pages and Our Team, which the census lists as unchecked; not fetched here (B_R is the census's own pages and Wikipedia).", "Capture findings against the field ledger: none shown wrong. 'Law School' is on no saved page, card or census copy (checked in B1–B5 text and HTML); the card's URL path is law-eti. findings[0] calls Fisher Phillips's a 'U.S. tracker' and gives 'since February 2021' as the composition's; the page's date is 25 February 2021 (F12). findings[2] calls etidail.com 'a second site under the database's name'; its title names the Ethical Tech Initiative too (F23).", "Surface: Google AI Overview (expanded), by the operator's default (the capture's surface_basis); auth signed out, incognito (operator defaults of 2026-10-14).", "Prose: attribution beneath (§4.5); a source is named in a sentence only where who holds the claim is part of what is said: the census's question and reading (sentences 16–17), the archive's readings, forecast and court (20–25), the Capture Registry's finding (28). The other trackers are named by their operators because their operators are part of what they are." ], "composition": { "source": "this row (composed directly under the brief rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AUTHORSHIP.md, with the v0.9 briefs it names)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-11-01", "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726)", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "the specification v0.10", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B79-text.md", "read": "§0–§11 whole (lines 83–317); §0.3, §3.1(a), §4.5, §4.12, §4.13, §8.2 and §11 closely" }, { "what": "leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record, row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/census.json (rows[slug == 'gwu-dail'], organizing_question, areas, anchor, admission_rule, schema_note); rows/gwu-dail.py", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "census source", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/sources/gwu-dail--home.*, manifest.json", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "capture record", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json (database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101)", "read": "transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, d, reading, findings, analysis, mt, q_kind, per_note, per_dim, originator, notes" }, { "what": "the cards and Wikipedia's record", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1–B6", "read": "whole (B3 the first page of its case table)" }, { "dep": 940, "file": "data/texts/AXN-03B8-text.md", "read": "§0 and §1 (lines 59–93), §3 (130–142), §6 condition 3 (184)" }, { "dep": 1722, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B2A-text.md", "read": "Part One (lines 73–90), Part Two and the note on intent and incentive (92–106), Part Three §4 'Too small to be real' (165–183), Part Eight (392–410); not admitted" }, { "dep": 195, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033B-text.md", "read": "Abstract and Thesis (lines 17–26); Part I on the litigation and registration (33–42); Parts II–III at the individuation bar, Burrow-Giles, the control criterion and the confession protocol (46–77); Part IV (84–90); the standard (100–110); the close and the claims block (126–163)" }, { "dep": 729, "file": "data/texts/AXN-027C-text.md", "read": "§3, Positions 1–2 (lines 128–139)" }, { "dep": 1369, "file": "data/texts/AXN-056A-text.md", "read": "§3 (line 120): the same passage as #729, a later version; one lineage" }, { "dep": 194, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033A-text.md", "read": "§I (line 59), the Double Enclosure join (69), §VII at lines 103, 111 and 123–125" }, { "dep": 193, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0339-text.md", "read": "the retrieval kernel and §§1–2 (lines 3–29), the Rules at lines 73–87, §7, the Docket (91–97)" }, { "dep": 823, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0338-text.md", "read": "the caption, Preliminary Statement and Parties" }, { "what": "exemplar rows", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/reuther-library.json and its ledgers, traversal and config", "read": "the shapes, field by field" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "The composer read the ledgers, never the transcript, except where the brief asks for T's claims and the delta. The kernel is composer-written (§8.2 derivation pending)." }, "composition_v09": { "source": "this row (composed directly under the brief rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v010/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AUTHORSHIP.md, with the v0.9 briefs it names)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-11-01", "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.10 (#1726)", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "the specification v0.10", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B79-text.md", "read": "§0–§11 whole (lines 83–317); §0.3, §3.1(a), §4.5, §4.12, §4.13, §8.2 and §11 closely" }, { "what": "leesharks.com apparatus authorship census record, row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/census.json (rows[slug == 'gwu-dail'], organizing_question, areas, anchor, admission_rule, schema_note); rows/gwu-dail.py", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "census source", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/leesharks.com/data/authorship-census/sources/gwu-dail--home.*, manifest.json", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "capture record", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json (database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101)", "read": "transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, d, reading, findings, analysis, mt, q_kind, per_note, per_dim, originator, notes" }, { "what": "the cards and Wikipedia's record", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1–B6", "read": "whole (B3 the first page of its case table)" }, { "dep": 940, "file": "data/texts/AXN-03B8-text.md", "read": "§0 and §1 (lines 59–93), §3 (130–142), §6 condition 3 (184)" }, { "dep": 1722, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0B2A-text.md", "read": "Part One (lines 73–90), Part Two and the note on intent and incentive (92–106), Part Three §4 'Too small to be real' (165–183), Part Eight (392–410); not admitted" }, { "dep": 195, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033B-text.md", "read": "Abstract and Thesis (lines 17–26); Part I on the litigation and registration (33–42); Parts II–III at the individuation bar, Burrow-Giles, the control criterion and the confession protocol (46–77); Part IV (84–90); the standard (100–110); the close and the claims block (126–163)" }, { "dep": 729, "file": "data/texts/AXN-027C-text.md", "read": "§3, Positions 1–2 (lines 128–139)" }, { "dep": 1369, "file": "data/texts/AXN-056A-text.md", "read": "§3 (line 120): the same passage as #729, a later version; one lineage" }, { "dep": 194, "file": "data/texts/AXN-033A-text.md", "read": "§I (line 59), the Double Enclosure join (69), §VII at lines 103, 111 and 123–125" }, { "dep": 193, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0339-text.md", "read": "the retrieval kernel and §§1–2 (lines 3–29), the Rules at lines 73–87, §7, the Docket (91–97)" }, { "dep": 823, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0338-text.md", "read": "the caption, Preliminary Statement and Parties" }, { "what": "exemplar rows", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/reuther-library.json and its ledgers, traversal and config", "read": "the shapes, field by field" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "The composer read the ledgers, never the transcript, except where the brief asks for T's claims and the delta. The kernel is composer-written (§8.2 derivation pending)." }, "field_by_origin": { "cards": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5" ], "own_pages": [ "B1" ], "wikipedia": [ "B6" ], "census_third_party": [], "unreachable": [], "title_only": [ "B4" ], "pools": { "B_D": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5" ], "B_R": [ "B6" ], "note": "B1 is both card 1 and the census's own page; carried once, in B_D (§3.1(a)). The census read no third-party source (every evidence basis 'operator')." }, "wikipedia_state": "no article: 'Database_of_AI_Litigation' and 'DAIL', action=raw HTTP 404 and rendered page HTTP 404 ('Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.'), no redirect; full-text search for \"Database of AI Litigation\" returns no results (2026-11-01T06:26:57Z–06:26:58Z)", "sources": [ { "id": "B1", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "role": "Overview card 1 (and the census's own page gwu-dail--home, carried once, in B_D)", "card": "The George Washington University — DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative - GW Blogs", "url": "https://blogs.gwu.edu/law-eti/ai-litigation-database/", "kind": "the database's page on the Ethical Tech Initiative's GW Blogs site; the census's own page gwu-dail--home", "files": { "B1.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1.html", "sha256": "0093afaa693252fb6b172df7246a9a286a89e91f65125e15c3e89a8730e387d4" }, "B1.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1.txt", "sha256": "ddbcd76663e7c4b8c9930b80a52a1c663296561074a7a43124f384831b1e0723" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T04:08:00Z (the census's fetch); refetched 2026-11-01T06:26:56Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://blogs.gwu.edu/law-eti/ai-litigation-database/", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1.html", "raw_sha256": "0093afaa693252fb6b172df7246a9a286a89e91f65125e15c3e89a8730e387d4", "census_copy": { "src": "gwu-dail--home", "sha256": "0093afaa693252fb6b172df7246a9a286a89e91f65125e15c3e89a8730e387d4", "read": "2026-11-01", "http": "200", "fetched": "2026-11-01T04:08:00Z", "agrees": true }, "refetch": { "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B1-refetch.html", "sha256": "e4286c1c28dd8f675ba3cfe1c5e9451631bec05eed19d4ac291736ad956eb2d1", "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:56Z", "http": 200, "differs_by": "the server timestamp in the admin_message script" } }, "names_operator": "yes ('Ethical Tech Initiative'; George Washington University in the footer, 'Contact GW')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "Copied from the census's saved copy (sources/gwu-dail--home.html.gz, gunzipped; sha256 matching the manifest, 0093afaa…). Refetched at 06:26:56Z with the census agent (B1-refetch.html, sha256 e4286c1c…): the bytes differ only in the server's timestamp inside the admin_message script ('time' 1793505768 against 1793512403); the extracted text differs only in whitespace before a full stop ('available here .' in the census text). The card and the census's own page are one page, carried once, as a card.", "also_origin": "own_page", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "card": 1 } ], "card_title": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative - GW Blogs", "card_snippet": "DAIL – The Database of AI Litigation. The Database of AI Litigation presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligenc...", "card_site": "The George Washington University", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F8", "F9", "F10" ] }, { "id": "B2", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "role": "Overview card 2", "card": "Fisher Phillips LLP — AI Litigation Tracker | Fisher Phillips LLP", "url": "https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/resources-and-innovation/trackers-and-maps/ai-litigation-tracker", "kind": "a law firm's tracker page", "files": { "B2.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B2.html", "sha256": "769b2a8485277c6f9d4bf8ffa2d05fb88e7eba5f02293397b51fab7f6903ee69" }, "B2.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B2.txt", "sha256": "573a26f666501035af88e917907f3a2f384dc3653ac437bd32877af6c342a7bc" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:34Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/resources-and-innovation/trackers-and-maps/ai-litigation-tracker", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B2.html", "raw_sha256": "769b2a8485277c6f9d4bf8ffa2d05fb88e7eba5f02293397b51fab7f6903ee69" }, "names_operator": "yes ('Fisher & Phillips LLP')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch on the card's title and site; the older address /en/innovations-center/ai-litigation-tracker.html redirects to it (HTTP 200 at the final URL, the two fetches byte-identical). Title verbatim the card's.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "card": 2 } ], "card_title": "AI Litigation Tracker | Fisher Phillips LLP", "card_snippet": "The AI Litigation Tracker provides a comprehensive view of litigation matters filed across all 50 states that involve the use of AI technologies, such as Gen AI...", "card_site": "Fisher Phillips LLP", "claims": [ "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15" ] }, { "id": "B3", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "role": "Overview card 3", "card": "Damien Charlotin — AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/", "kind": "an individual researcher's database page (the first page of the case table)", "files": { "B3.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B3.html", "sha256": "cc6e6fecd84aa48932cffb946dcd8d726f9ffe0d0e19dd23f95b7fc3c13d2aa4" }, "B3.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B3.txt", "sha256": "0205843985fe316f80fa8d076a92fb1699cb4d9d1901bddf036ff903b0330108" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:34Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B3.html", "raw_sha256": "cc6e6fecd84aa48932cffb946dcd8d726f9ffe0d0e19dd23f95b7fc3c13d2aa4" }, "names_operator": "yes ('© 2026 Damien Charlotin.')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch on the card's title; the page's title 'AI Hallucination Cases Database – Damien Charlotin'. The case table is paged (page 1 of 45 saved).", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "card": 3 } ], "card_title": "AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin", "card_snippet": "AI Hallucination Cases This database tracks legal decisions 1 Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or...", "card_site": "Damien Charlotin", "claims": [ "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22" ] }, { "id": "B4", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "role": "Overview card 4", "card": "etidail.com — DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation", "url": "https://etidail.com/", "kind": "a second address under the database's name; a script-rendered page", "files": { "B4.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B4.html", "sha256": "7f3bcfccae43548cf6a0aa2834cee9495c6c5bd5d1cb2342720e21e9fdebb937" }, "B4.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B4.txt", "sha256": "5cc1c2dd33d471366c83a2946a8e618340829e17c0f088a387885c35bbda1fb5" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:33Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://etidail.com/", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B4.html", "raw_sha256": "7f3bcfccae43548cf6a0aa2834cee9495c6c5bd5d1cb2342720e21e9fdebb937" }, "names_operator": "yes, in the page title ('Ethical Tech Initiative')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "Script-rendered: the served HTML (1031 bytes) is an empty application shell ('You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.') whose only text is its title, 'DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation – Ethical Tech Initiative'. Recorded so (brief, Substitutions 2); the script bundle was not fetched or read. https://www.etidail.com/ fails certificate verification (the certificate does not name the www host); not fetched with verification disabled. The card's snippet stands as the page's only text beyond its title (F24).", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "card": 4 } ], "card_title": "DAIL – the Database of AI Litigation", "card_snippet": "DAIL - the Database of AI Litigation This database presents information about ongoing and completed litigation involving artificial intelligence, including mach...", "card_site": "etidail.com", "card_note_registry": "a second address under the database's name, not in the census row", "claims": [ "F23", "F24" ] }, { "id": "B5", "origin": "card", "pool": "B_D", "role": "Overview card 5", "card": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader — AI Litigation Case Law Tracker | Explore global AI-related cases | Hogan Lovells Cadwalader", "url": "https://digital-client-solutions.hlc.com/resources/ai-litigation-case-law-tracker", "kind": "a law firm's tracker page", "files": { "B5.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B5.html", "sha256": "3fb9e109aa4549123d4183a3fa9f3b2dca9e50f3a940507ea3848bc1121e5fc6" }, "B5.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B5.txt", "sha256": "30e88c58619ce4ee490e77a89dda947fcee24da0ed6c66d7b5b75853d797b03f" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:56Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://digital-client-solutions.hlc.com/resources/ai-litigation-case-law-tracker", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B5.html", "raw_sha256": "3fb9e109aa4549123d4183a3fa9f3b2dca9e50f3a940507ea3848bc1121e5fc6" }, "names_operator": "yes ('Hogan Lovells Cadwalader International LLP')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch (digital-client-solutions.hoganlovells.com/resources/ai-litigation-case-law-tracker/generate-report); the tracker's address without /generate-report fetched, redirected to the hlc.com host. Title verbatim the card's.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "database-of-ai-litigation-aio-20261101", "card": 5 } ], "card_title": "AI Litigation Case Law Tracker | Explore global AI-related cases | Hogan Lovells Cadwalader", "card_snippet": "AI Litigation Case Law Tracker Explore our global digital solution for monitoring AI-related cases across key jurisdictions. Visit the AI Hub Generate report My...", "card_site": "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader", "claims": [ "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33" ] }, { "id": "B6", "origin": "wikipedia", "pool": "B_R", "role": "the entity's Wikipedia record: no article", "card": "Wikipedia — no article ('Database of AI Litigation'; 'DAIL')", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_of_AI_Litigation", "kind": "the record of an absence", "files": { "B6-page-404.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-page-404.html", "sha256": "7ef7dfc9ab883d5d50b44a607ffade1c4351f5a4e9f4f34330f7e9bf97b520c6" }, "B6-page-404.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-page-404.txt", "sha256": "4e21a7b6381e1fa0937caa35e9eae7aa499456c0b71489f5cec2a46888732b41" }, "B6-raw-404.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-raw-404.html", "sha256": "19784c9f306f4a3936cb7b982fc1c554c7ce3711e3ea36572316bee341713208" }, "B6-DAIL-raw-404.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-DAIL-raw-404.html", "sha256": "770a26202227285fba0fe72c75de1b652ceda6b19d7f38ed59f88cbd2ee23870" }, "B6-DAIL-page-404.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-DAIL-page-404.html", "sha256": "3a5d3e35edeb1e8954a49fdab5756f85b8b108a6ca921956b6470629dadc7530" }, "B6-search.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-search.html", "sha256": "1421d3b722bb6838cd4efb966cc01f4f9b6e4dba5d70b6018869582061d4d466" }, "B6-search.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-search.txt", "sha256": "e23114f0187787e6700aaa2e316eea761061dde9d9329758ced9825a7b2b0a5f" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-11-01T06:26:57Z–06:26:58Z", "http": 404, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_of_AI_Litigation", "agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; leesharks-authorship-census)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/dail-20261101/B6-page-404.html", "raw_sha256": "7ef7dfc9ab883d5d50b44a607ffade1c4351f5a4e9f4f34330f7e9bf97b520c6" }, "names_operator": "no", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, leesharks.com, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "action=raw for 'Database_of_AI_Litigation' and 'DAIL': HTTP 404; the rendered pages: HTTP 404 ('Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.'); no redirect from either name. Full-text search for the quoted phrase \"Database of AI Litigation\" (main namespace): HTTP 200, 'There were no results matching the query.'", "surfaced_by_T": [], "not_surfaced_note": "B_R: admitted on the operator's ruling of 2026-10-29; not surfaced by T", "claims": [ "F34", "F35" ] } ] }, "derivatives": { "kernel": { "status": "composer-written", "derived_from": "the current composition, written by its composer under the brief", "note": "§8.2 derives the kernel mechanically from the frozen plan; this one was written by the composer, mechanical derivation pending." }, "delta": { "status": "current", "derived_from": "the current composition" } } }