Skip to main content
AI Policy File

Editorial standards and legal-source review

Last substantive legal-source review: August 2, 2026. Next scheduled review no later than August 9, 2026.

Who writes and reviews this site

AI Policy File is created and maintained by Jason Ramirez, the site owner and maintainer. He is not an attorney and does not claim legal credentials. Unless a page expressly names a qualified professional reviewer, the page has not been reviewed by a lawyer. That limitation is shown because legal credentials should never be implied.

Source hierarchy

Legal claims start with enacted statutes, regulations, official codes, and official agency guidance. Government summaries may clarify timing or administration, but they do not replace the controlling text. Each guide links the primary sources used. Secondary commentary is not treated as authority for a legal conclusion.

Review method

  1. Confirm the current text, status, application or operative date, and amendments.
  2. Separate provider, deployer, advertiser, publisher, and platform roles.
  3. State important thresholds, knowledge standards, exceptions, and enforcement limits.
  4. Test checker paths for conservative screening rather than definitive legal outcomes.
  5. Record the review date and schedule the next source check.

The checker cannot determine jurisdiction, legal status, compliance, defenses, or an enforcement outcome. It highlights facts and official sources that may warrant review.

Corrections

Report a factual error, stale source, or broken link to hello@aipolicyfile.com. Include the page, statement, and official source URL. Do not send confidential facts or ask for advice about a specific legal matter. Material corrections are noted below.

Material review log

Material source reviews and corrections
DateReview
September 9, 2026The deterministic source monitor found that SB 1000 is now enrolled and was presented to the Governor on September 2, but is not chaptered. Public status copy and structured source metadata were updated without changing the August 2 substantive-review date or clearing the overdue warning. This automated check did not replace substantive human review.
August 29, 2026An AI-assisted comparison against official sources found that the New York guide had retained written-notice, cure-period, and disclosure-removal clauses from an earlier bill version that were removed from enacted S.8420-A. The guide was corrected against current General Business Law Section 396-b, the prior wording was recorded on the Corrections page, and the site remains marked source-review overdue. The check also removed an unsupported California B.O.T. Act enforcement characterization; added Regulation (EU) 2026/1744's Article 50(7) change and the formal Code adequacy assessments; and updated pending SB 1000's status without treating it as current law. A deterministic monitor separately checks official links, recorded document fingerprints, current FTC text, and pending SB 1000 status. Neither process replaced substantive human review.
August 2, 2026Rechecked all five frameworks against official sources; added the EU Article 50(2) transition enacted by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744; corrected the California AI Transparency Act operative date against the current code; incorporated AB 853's staged platform, hosting, and capture-device provisions; flagged pending SB 1000 as proposed rather than current law; and expanded checker-path regression tests.
July 24, 2026Centralized legal review dates and rechecked the five published framework guides.