Research preview. Independent expert review is pending. The worked analyses are hypothetical.
Method and corrections Interactive field model
Inspect the system around the AI system. The model is organized by the clauses of the definition: societies, the four objects, the benefits and harmful patterns governance aims at, and the conditions it races against. Apply a cross-cutting test, narrow by lifecycle stage or level, and inspect how definitions, claims, relationships and sources travel together.
Apply a cross-cutting test Whole model Power Legitimacy Distribution Adaptability
Narrow by lifecycle stage or level Lifecycle stage Any stage Research Data collection Model development Evaluation Procurement Deployment Monitoring Incident response Retirement Level Any level Community and organisational use Corporate Sectoral National Regional International Loading interactive controls. Concept links remain available. Field model · whole model
Groups follow the clauses of the definition; they are not a sequence or causal chain. Actual relationships appear in the inspector.
Jump to selected entity Societies …how societies should shape…
actor AI developer or provider actor Deploying organization actor Affected people actor Civil society and independent researchers Incentives …the incentives…
incentive Deployment pressure incentive Competitive race dynamics incentive Liability exposure incentive Procurement leverage
Institutions …institutions…
institution Regulator or public authority institution Internal safety and governance team institution Standards body institution International institution
Infrastructures …infrastructures…
infrastructure Evaluation capacity infrastructure Compute infrastructure Data, language resources, and data labor infrastructure Energy, water, and minerals infrastructure Data work and content moderation Safeguards …and safeguards around AI…
safeguard Risk management process safeguard Impact assessment safeguard Traceability safeguard Audit record safeguard Meaningful human oversight safeguard Supervision and regulatory review safeguard Pre-deployment evaluation and red teaming safeguard Incident reporting and post-deployment monitoring safeguard Complaint and appeal routes safeguard Review and sunset provisions safeguard Compute controls Benefits and harmful patterns …so that its benefits are broadly shared and harmful patterns are addressed…
principle Accountability principle Safety principle Broadly shared benefit pattern Contestable decision pattern Concentration of power pattern Systematically unreliable provenance pattern Over-reliance and deskilling pattern Sycophancy and engagement-driven agreement pattern Homogenisation and loss of authorship Choices and conditions …while they are still choices rather than conditions.
condition Lock-in condition Governance lock-in condition Reversibility window
Institution · Institutions established
Regulator or public authority A legally constituted body that can make, supervise, interpret, or enforce public rules.
What authority makes a governance demand legitimate and enforceable, and does the body have the staff and expertise to use it?
Tests Legitimacy Power
Levels National Regional Recorded relationships Read each statement from its first entity to its second. Status describes our mapping, not certainty of cause.
Regulator or public authority — conducts → Supervision and regulatory review
Mapping: asserted
Competent authorities derive their supervisory powers from legal mandates within a jurisdiction.
Inspect evidence · source links · passage review pending Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Regulator or public authority — receives → Complaint and appeal routes
Mapping: asserted
The original EU text routes complaints to a market surveillance authority; the route exists only where such an authority is designated and resourced.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act (opens in a new tab) Original 2024 text, Article 85 — Right to lodge a complaint with a market surveillance authority
Article 85 provides a route to a market surveillance authority for people or organizations with grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed. This is not a guarantee of compensation.
Scope note: Original 2024 enactment, not a consolidated current-law or applicability check. Records discuss its text, not whether a provision applies to a particular situation today.
Passage checked 2026-10-11 · eu-complaint
International institution — coordinates across → Regulator or public authority
Mapping: asserted
National and regional authorities are described as crucial, but the transboundary technology is said to require a global approach that connects them.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Governing AI for Humanity: Final Report (opens in a new tab) Executive summary, para. ix (p. 7)
The development, deployment and use of AI cannot be left to markets alone; national governments and regional organizations are described as crucial, but the transboundary structure and application of the technology is said to necessitate a global approach.
Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.
Passage checked 2026-09-06 · un-hlab-global-approach
Claims and evidence · 6 synthesis Confidence: high Contestability: medium
Voluntary frameworks and binding law can share governance goals while creating different duties, enforcement pathways, and evidence burdens.
Inspect evidence · source links · passage review pending Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
source-assertion Confidence: high Contestability: low
Representation and coordination in governance are not enough; commitments require implementation and capacity to produce tangible outcomes.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Governing AI for Humanity: Final Report (opens in a new tab) Executive summary, para. xviii (p. 8)
Representation and coordination are said not to be enough: accountability requires implementation so that commitments translate into tangible outcomes, including capacity development, much of it at national and regional levels.
Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.
Passage checked 2026-09-06 · un-hlab-implementation
source-assertion Confidence: medium Contestability: high
Algorithmic fraud control in public welfare can subject benefit recipients to mass surveillance and discriminate against marginalized groups; human-rights groups argue such systems should be paused until shown to be lawful and fair.
Our reading: Amnesty’s findings; the Danish authorities dispute parts of them.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Coded Injustice: Surveillance and Discrimination in Denmark’s Automated Welfare State (opens in a new tab) Executive summary, pp. 8–12
Denmark’s welfare agency runs dozens of fraud-detection models that, Amnesty finds, surveil benefit recipients at scale and risk disproportionately targeting marginalized groups; it calls for a pause until adequate evidence is provided.
Scope note: Affected-community and human-rights voice, based partly on interviews with benefit recipients. Danish authorities dispute parts of its findings.
Passage checked 2026-10-09 · amnesty-denmark-welfare
source-assertion Confidence: high Contestability: low
An Africa-led global index finds Global South AI governance relies mostly on non-binding frameworks, leaving a wide North–South gap in responsible-AI capacity.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Global Index on Responsible AI, 2026 Report (opens in a new tab) Global South findings: “Responsible AI governance is expanding but binding protections remain weak”; Equity
78% of responsible-AI framework cases in Global South countries are non-binding, against 42% in the Global North; average index scores are 27 and 55 respectively.
Scope note: Africa-led research index covering 135 countries and jurisdictions. Its scores reflect its own methodology.
Passage checked 2026-10-09 · girai-non-binding-gap
synthesis Confidence: high Contestability: low
By 2025–26, governments and regulators in several countries had acted on companion chatbots and young users: US study orders on effects on children, a California law on disclosure and crisis protocols, an Italian fine that cited missing age verification, and Australian industry codes applied to companions.
Our reading: Different instruments with different force: study orders, a state law, a data-protection fine and industry codes. None is a general ban, and their effects were not yet evaluated.
Inspect evidence · 4 passages Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions (opens in a new tab) Press release
The FTC ordered seven companies offering companion-style chatbots to report how they measure, test and monitor negative effects on children and teens, limit young users’ exposure, and inform users and parents of risks.
Scope note: Announcement of Section 6(b) study orders to seven companies, issued by a 3–0 vote. These are information-gathering orders, not enforcement actions; no published result was found.
Passage checked 2026-10-18 · ftc-6b-scope
California SB 243 (2025), Companion chatbots (opens in a new tab) Chaptered text, operator duties
Operators must tell users a companion chatbot is AI where a person could think it human, keep and publish a protocol for suicide and self-harm content with crisis referrals, and for users known to be minors, remind them regularly that the bot is AI and to take breaks, and take measures against sexual content.
Scope note: Signed and filed on 13 October 2025. The official legislature site did not load, so the chaptered text was read on LegiScan. Its effective date (expected 1 January 2026 under California’s default rule) was not confirmed on an official page.
Passage checked 2026-10-18 · sb243-minor-duties
AI: the Garante fines the company that operates the chatbot “Replika” (opens in a new tab) Press release
The Italian data-protection authority fined the operator of a companion chatbot €5 million, finding no legal basis for processing and no age verification despite the company saying minors were excluded.
Scope note: Regulator’s announcement of a €5 million GDPR fine decided on 10 April 2025, including findings on absent age verification. In Italian.
Passage checked 2026-10-18 · garante-replika-age
eSafety report shows AI companions are putting children at risk (opens in a new tab) Media release
None of four companion services examined had robust age verification; industry codes now apply to companion chatbots, and two services changed access for under-18s in Australia after the notices.
Scope note: Regulator media release from 2026; the page shows no date. It reports transparency notices to four companion services and a survey of Australians aged 10–17.
Passage checked 2026-10-18 · esafety-companion-findings
source-assertion Confidence: high Contestability: medium
EU law prohibits AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities due to age to materially distort behaviour in a way likely to cause significant harm.
Our reading: Read through the Commission’s official AI Act Service Desk, which reproduces the consolidated text. How the prohibition applies to companion chatbots has not been tested in court.
Inspect evidence · 1 passage Passage summaries are paraphrases, not quotations. Open the source to read the full passage.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act (opens in a new tab) Article 5(1)(b), via the Commission’s AI Act Service Desk
The Act prohibits AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities due to age, disability or social or economic situation to materially distort behaviour in a way that causes or is likely to cause significant harm; the prohibitions apply from 2 February 2025.
Scope note: Original 2024 enactment, not a consolidated current-law or applicability check. Records discuss its text, not whether a provision applies to a particular situation today.
Passage checked 2026-10-18 · eu-ai-act-art5-age