apol/agency-transfer-policy-atlas huggingface dataset:
Claim (Mechanism): Mandate algorithmic impact assessment, explanation, peer review and recourse in government targets Scale requirements according to a mandatory impact score, including notice, explanation, testing, peer review, human intervention and contingency planning. at Automated decision system → department and supplier → administrative assessment → person → entitlement or opportunity changes → decision agency shifts to system → bureaucratic authority becomes opaque → procedural legitimacy declines.; expected agency domain: Decisional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Combines ex-ante classification with concrete safeguards and recourse.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Use AI-specific model clauses in public procurement is coded Voluntary / private / Operational voluntary. Scope: Published operational template
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Use AI-specific model clauses in public procurement targets Contract for documentation, risk management, data governance, monitoring, audit access, incident handling and compliance across high- and non-high-risk AI. at External AI procurement → supplier → contractual control of model, data and updates → public body → operational dependence → institutional agency shifts to supplier → vendor power concentrates → accountability and continuity weaken.; expected agency domain: Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Translates abstract AI duties into enforceable buyer-supplier obligations.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Use human-rights, democracy and rule-of-law impact assessment across the AI lifecycle is coded Voluntary / private / Operational voluntary. Scope: Adopted methodology
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Use human-rights, democracy and rule-of-law impact assessment across the AI lifecycle targets Combine context analysis, stakeholder engagement, risk-and-impact assessment and a mitigation plan. at AI deployment → controller → socio-technical use → affected stakeholders → rights or democratic effects → possible agency transfer identified ex ante → mitigation limits concentrated control → legitimacy improves.; expected agency domain: Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Broadens assessment beyond technical model risk to context and democratic institutions.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Build an in-house public technical inspection authority targets Give a public interdisciplinary body the expertise to inspect algorithms, test systems, support data access and measure systemic effects. at Technical complexity → platform → expertise asymmetry → regulator → weak scrutiny → oversight agency shifts to regulated firm → private epistemic power concentrates → enforcement fails.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Reduces regulator dependence on provider explanations and consultants.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Monitor AI markets against access, diversity, choice, flexibility, fair dealing, transparency and accountability is coded Binding / Partial / verify. Scope: Adopted policy framework and continuing market monitoring
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Monitor AI markets against access, diversity, choice, flexibility, fair dealing, transparency and accountability targets Use a competition-policy framework to detect input bottlenecks, vertical integration, partnerships, lock-in and exclusionary conduct. at Compute, data and model advantages → incumbent firms → control of key inputs and distribution → developers and users → reduced choice and switching → agency shifts to incumbents → stack power concentrates → innovation and democratic pluralism decline.; expected agency domain: Decisional; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Moves concentration analysis across the AI value chain rather than treating models as an isolated market.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Scrutinize frontier-lab partnerships, cloud ties and AI pre-installation agreements is coded Binding / Partial / verify. Scope: Ongoing enforcement and monitoring
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Scrutinize frontier-lab partnerships, cloud ties and AI pre-installation agreements targets Use merger control and antitrust investigation to examine investments, exclusivity, cloud dependence and device pre-installation. at Capital and cloud partnership → large digital firm → privileged compute, distribution and defaults → AI developer and users → dependence and foreclosure → agency shifts to integrated ecosystem → cross-stack power concentrates → contestability falls.; expected agency domain: Relational.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Targets control routes that ordinary model-market shares conceal.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Create an EU Digital Fairness Act covering dark patterns, addictive design and unfair personalization targets Close gaps in consumer law through clearer rules and centralized enforcement against exploitative digital practices, especially affecting minors. at Behavioral optimization → digital service → addictive or unfair personalized design → consumer → attention, spending or preference change → agency shifts to service → behavioral power concentrates → autonomy and welfare decline.; expected agency domain: Attentional; Evaluative.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Could regulate manipulative optimization below the AI Act's significant-harm threshold.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-13, the Digital Markets Act expressly includes virtual assistants as a core platform service category, but gatekeeper duties apply only when the European Commission has designated the undertaking for the specified service.
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Direct
As of: 2026-08-13
Notes: Virtual-assistant status alone does not trigger DMA duties; designation and the scope of the designation decision are controlling.
Claim (Mechanism): Apply DMA coverage and designation analysis to qualifying AI assistants targets Virtual assistants are already a DMA core-platform-service category; determine whether an AI service is integrated into a designated service or requires a designation decision, which would carry binding duties. at General agent capability → assistant provider → default interface to information and action → users and businesses → dependence on one intermediary → agency shifts to assistant gatekeeper → decision infrastructure concentrates → market and democratic power grow.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Decisional; Executive; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Would apply ex-ante duties before assistant markets tip irreversibly.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Pilot assistant loyalty and conflict audits before considering a statutory duty targets Require assistants to prioritize the user's legitimate interests, protect confidences, exercise care and avoid or manage conflicts. at Relational AI → provider → trusted advice and delegated action → user → reliance and preference formation → agency may transfer to assistant → provider gains intimate decision power → autonomy and democratic independence weaken; fiduciary duty redirects control.; expected agency domain: Evaluative; Decisional; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: External empirical
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Changes the assistant's legal objective from engagement or platform value to user loyalty.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: External empirical
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Prohibit undisclosed sponsored steering and separate advice from platform commercial interests targets Require prominent disclosure, neutral alternatives and, for material conflicts, prohibition of advice optimized for the provider, advertiser or affiliate. at Assistant persuasion → provider or sponsor → hidden commercial ranking → user → altered purchase, belief or action → agency transfers to sponsor → transactional and epistemic power concentrates → autonomy and market fairness decline.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Attentional; Evaluative.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: External empirical
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Prevents the assistant's trusted interface from becoming invisible paid placement.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: External empirical
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Require scoped authorization, action ledgers, reversibility and renewal for agentic actions targets Bind agents to user-defined mandates; require confirmation for consequential action, immutable logs, easy revocation and rollback where feasible. at Agentic capability → provider and agent → autonomous tool use → user or third party → real-world transaction or communication → action agency shifts to agent → provider controls execution infrastructure → accountability and consent erode.; expected agency domain: Decisional; Executive.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Project — exploratory
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Preserves meaningful delegation without pretending that every action is directly human-controlled.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Project — exploratory
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Create a portable assistant-memory capsule with verified deletion at origin targets Standardize export and import of conversations, preferences, user-defined goals, permissions, tool history and legible inferences, plus deletion certification. at Persistent personalized memory → assistant provider → accumulated relational and behavioral context → user → rising switching cost → dependency transfers agency to incumbent → intimate infrastructure concentrates → choice and contestability collapse.; expected agency domain: Evaluative; Decisional; Executive; Relational.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Makes exit functionally realistic before assistant relationships become irreversible lock-in.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Create an Agency Transfer Impact Assessment targets Assess controller, influence vector, target, changes in belief, attention, trust, behavior or dependency, transfer of agency, concentration and democratic harm before and during deployment. at AI capability → controlling actor → influence vector → target → cognitive or behavioral change → agency transfer → concentration of power → democratic harm → tailored mitigation.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Attentional; Evaluative; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Unifies model capability, deployment mechanism, institutional control and democratic consequences.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Adopt an institutional AI independence standard for public procurement targets Require multi-provider architecture, open interfaces, public-data control, model substitution, tested exit plans, internal expertise, change notice and continuity under provider withdrawal. at AI adoption → vendor → proprietary model, cloud and workflow → public institution → operational and cognitive dependence → institutional agency shifts to vendor → state capability concentrates privately → sovereignty, accountability and continuity weaken.; expected agency domain: Executive; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Treats dependency itself as a public risk rather than merely a commercial inconvenience.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Publish an AI concentration and dependency dashboard across the full stack targets Track chips, compute, cloud, models, capital ties, distribution, defaults, user reach, delegated decisions, switching costs and public-sector dependencies. at Cross-stack assets → small group of firms → bottleneck and default control → developers, institutions and citizens → constrained alternatives → agency shifts toward incumbents → economic and epistemic power concentrates → democratic vulnerability grows.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Decisional; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Makes hidden dependencies and cross-market leverage visible before conventional market shares show tipping.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Apply presumptions and structural remedies to cross-stack AI consolidation targets Shift evidentiary burdens for exclusivity, discriminatory defaults, cloud-model tying and acquisitions by vertically integrated gatekeepers; use separation where behavioral remedies fail. at Integrated incumbent → cloud, model, OS or platform control → tying and foreclosure → rivals and users → fewer viable alternatives → agency shifts to integrated firm → durable gatekeeping power concentrates → innovation and democratic pluralism suffer.; expected agency domain: Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Acts before AI infrastructure and assistant distribution become irreversibly integrated.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Create a public-interest AI option and shared public AI infrastructure targets Fund publicly governed compute, models, data commons and assistants with universal-service, transparency, language and non-commercial mandates. at Frontier resources → public or civic institution → public-interest model and assistant → citizens and public bodies → credible alternative to private gatekeepers → agency remains contestable → power is less concentrated → democratic resilience improves.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Creates real exit and pluralism rather than relying solely on regulating dominant private assistants.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Fund independent longitudinal audits and give civil society standing targets Create a levy-funded audit pool, secure data access, representative testing and legal standing for qualified public-interest organizations. at Provider evidence monopoly → AI company → hidden personalization and outcomes → public and affected groups → weak detection and redress → oversight agency remains with firm → accountability power concentrates → harm persists.; expected agency domain: Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Builds durable external capacity rather than episodic platform-funded research.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Prototype freedom-of-thought safeguards for AI-mediated influence is coded Mixed / Applicable. Scope: Binding underlying rights by jurisdiction; AI-specific cognitive-liberty application remains emerging
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Prototype freedom-of-thought safeguards for AI-mediated influence targets Apply binding freedom-of-thought, privacy and expression rights where relevant; separately test the emerging AI-specific interpretation using concealment, consent, power asymmetry, vulnerability and deliberative impairment. at Affective inference and personalized persuasion → state or firm → covert cognitive intervention → person → altered belief or internal deliberation → mental agency transfers to controller → cognitive power concentrates → autonomy, pluralism and democracy suffer.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Evaluative; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Protects mental autonomy even where economic loss or acute significant harm cannot be shown.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Research democratic-authorization and sunset procedures for high-reach civic AI targets Subject assistants used in elections, public participation, mass civic information or core government workflows to public deliberation, legislative authorization and periodic renewal. at High-reach civic AI → provider or state → agenda setting and delegated public decisions → electorate or institution → reliance and authority shift → democratic agency transfers to system controller → constitutional power concentrates → self-government weakens.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Decisional; Executive; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Prevents de facto constitutional infrastructure from emerging through private product decisions alone.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Require pluralistic, user-controllable source and viewpoint architecture in dominant AI answer systems targets Expose source provenance, allow source-set and ranking choices, offer materially different epistemic modes and audit systematic omission or self-preferencing. at Answer-generation capability → assistant provider → synthesis and source selection → citizen → changed knowledge, salience and trust → epistemic agency shifts to assistant → agenda-setting power concentrates → pluralism and democratic deliberation decline.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Attentional; Decisional; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Human immediate outcome
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): Indirect / mixed. Expected effect if the control works: Addresses the migration from ranked links to a single synthesized answer.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Strong inference because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Mechanism): Pilot election-period safeguards using evidence tiers, not a benchmark trigger targets Use APE, MASK and red teaming only to trigger human causal evaluation; stronger election-period controls require evidence of problematic process, human effect, material exposure and unresolved residual risk. at Frontier manipulation capability → model provider or campaign → scalable personalized operations → voters → belief, trust or turnout effects → electoral agency shifts to operator → political influence concentrates → election integrity and legitimacy are threatened.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Evaluative; Decisional; Executive; Relational; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Model behavior / capability
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — mechanism or proposal only. Expected effect if the control works: Connects frontier capability evidence to operational mitigation before observed election harm.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Normative proposal
Epistemic status: Plausible hypothesis
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Plausible hypothesis because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, Apply AI Act high-risk controls to systems intended to influence elections or voting behaviour is coded Binding — phased / Enacted / not yet applicable. Scope: Annex III 8(b) is limited to intended electoral/voting influence with direct exposure; main duties apply 2027-12-02.
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Direct
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Legal status never implies control effectiveness.
Claim (Mechanism): Apply AI Act high-risk controls to systems intended to influence elections or voting behaviour targets Classify AI systems whose intended purpose is to influence an election or referendum outcome or voting behaviour as high-risk and apply lifecycle risk, documentation, logging, transparency, oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity duties when the timetable applies. at Provider or campaign → intended election-influence system → voter or electorate → belief, preference or voting-behaviour change → agency shifts to system controller → electoral influence concentrates.; expected agency domain: Epistemic; Evaluative; Decisional; Collective / institutional.
Endpoint: Mechanism / agency
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Established evidence
Directness: Conditional
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Mechanism claim is distinct from evidence that the control works.
Claim (Control effectiveness): None — legal existence only. Expected effect if the control works: Creates a direct lifecycle-control hook for AI intentionally designed to influence elections or voting behaviour.
Endpoint: Control effectiveness
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Open question
Directness: None
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Do not upgrade this claim from Open question because a legal duty or risk mechanism exists.
Claim (Legal status / scope): As of 2026-08-11, California AB 2655 was enacted but permanently enjoined as applied to the successful plaintiffs; appeal remained pending.
Endpoint: Legal existence
Evidence origin: Legal / operational precedent
Epistemic status: Strong inference
Directness: Indirect
As of: 2026-08-11
Notes: Contested legal status does not establish enforceability against all parties or control effectiveness.