Every claim this publication has made, and whether it still holds.
The point of writing about enterprise AI is to be right for longer than a news cycle. This page tracks every argument this publication has made, reviewed on a 30–90 day rhythm. If something stops holding, it's marked and the piece is annotated. Nothing is quietly removed. Claims made by others — vendors, analysts, regulators — are tracked separately at /archive/.
| Status | Claim | Next review |
|---|---|---|
| Holding | AM-020 · pub 31 Jul 2025 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Based on 2026 CFO-guide data: €368K vs €158K naive estimate, 40-60% TCO underestimate, 73% exceed by 2.4x, 15-20%/year maintenance, supervision tax in thousands/month, 70% failure from change management. Watching for a Big 4 TCO framework or enterprise CFO survey that resolves the cross-departmental framing. | +45dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-046 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Sibling to OPS-041 (parent platform-algorithm-penalties piece, this is the marketplace-specific cut) and OPS-032 (chatgpt-vs-claude-vs-gemini-smb-content). Verified primary references: Etsy seller handbook stance on AI creations (human input, disclosure, authenticity as the three pillars); Etsy Creativity Standards (governing what is acceptable creative output, with explicit AI-assisted vs AI-generated guidance); 2025-2026 Etsy disclosure requirements tightened materially. Marktplaats's seller-rules framework (Adevinta-published photo-fingerprint deduplication; threshold tight enough that AI-generated background variations trip rather than evade). Vinted's seller policy targeting counterfeits, scams, resale-of-resold via image-similarity penalty. EU DSA and EU AI Act enforcement noted as the forward-looking pressure on marketplace platforms to enforce AI-disclosure rules more aggressively in 2026. 60-day review cadence; trigger conditions include Etsy policy updates, Marktplaats policy updates, Vinted policy updates, EU DSA enforcement actions on marketplace seller transparency, EU AI Act Aug 2026 enforcement effects. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-045 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 NL-specific extension of OPS-031 (jurisdiction-neutral DIY AI bookkeeping) plus OPS-037 (AI invoicing + VAT compliance). Verified primary sources: Moneybird pricing page (€15/mo for 20 banktransactions; €28/mo for 50; €39/mo onbeperkt; 60-day free trial; 400,000+ users; API-toegang on all paid tiers); e-Boekhouden positioning (15 maanden gratis voor starters; Scan & Herken mobiele OCR; Belastingdienst BTW-aangifte integration; bankkoppelingen Rabobank/ING/ABN AMRO; Mollie + WooCommerce); Exact Online positioning (€40-€60/mo Boekhouden tier, oplopend tot €120-€180/mo Multivestiging; Exact Insights AI-gestuurde categorisatie). Wet AWR artikel 52 (7-jaar bewaarverplichting boekhoudkundige administratie) en BTW-administratie als de Belastingdienst-audittrail-grens. Sibling claims: OPS-031, OPS-037, OPS-040 (NL-ZZP AI displacement). 60-day review cadence; trigger conditions include vendor API changes, Belastingdienst guidance updates, NBA position-paper updates, OSS-regeling wijzigingen. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-044 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Sibling to OPS-028 (small beauty salon case study, the prototype this expands) and OPS-041 (platform algorithm penalties — review-generation has the same algorithmic-penalty risk if AI-drafted reviews are involved). Verified primary sources: Booksy pricing ($29.99/mo plus $20 per additional user; cancellation fees, deposits, unlimited SMS/email reminders; EU/NL availability via European language options); Square Appointments / Treatwell / Vagaro positioning. Twilio and MessageBird (Bird) cited as the SMS-API providers at €0.05-0.08 per message in EU markets. Sub-segment fit per category (hairdresser/plumber/garage/cleaner) covered with category-specific tools (Jobber, ServiceTitan, ZenMaid) referenced. Editorial finding: most international AI-marketplace tooling does not target Marktplaats's specific photo-fingerprint deduplication mechanic, which produces the failure pattern for AI-using NL operators. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-043 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Sibling to OPS-033 (parent SMB customer service piece), OPS-034 (solo founder email triage), OPS-003 (Claude Pro vs ChatGPT Plus). Verified primary sources: Fin.ai pricing ($0.99/outcome with own helpdesk; $0.99/outcome + $29/seat with Intercom helpdesk; 14-day free trial; Lightspeed customer evidence: 65% end-to-end resolution per Angelo Livanos, VP Global Support); Crisp pricing (€0/€5/€25/€75 AI credits across Free/Mini/Essentials/Plus tiers; explicit refusal of consumption billing; EU-hosted by default which matters for NL/DE/FR operators); Tidio pricing (Starter $24.17/mo with 100 billable conversations; Lyro AI add-on starting at $32.50/mo for 50 conversations; Premium custom-priced with guaranteed 50% Lyro resolution rate). The 200-tickets-per-week threshold is order-of-magnitude derived from per-ticket time savings (90 sec average) against per-outcome and per-conversation pricing economics. Per-platform deflection-rate evidence cited from vendor-published customer evidence; verifies on a quarterly cadence given vendor pricing churn. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-042 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 First operator piece in the construction-AI category since OPS-026 (case study). Verified primary sources: Togal.AI homepage (98% accuracy claim, 5x speed claim, named small-contractor customers including SR Construction Services, Leathertown Lumber, Arizona Polymer Flooring, PHP Commercial Painting, Floortex Integrated); Procore Copilot product positioning (attach-rate AI for existing Procore customers); Buildots and OpenSpace as the contrast cohort (excellent products at scale, fail cost-benefit under 100 employees). Editorial finding: 1build has materially repositioned in 2026 from a small-contractor estimating tool (brief framing) to a developer-API for construction cost data (68M live materials/labor/equipment costs, 3,000+ US counties); piece surfaces this pivot. AGC of America workforce survey and Dodge Construction Network SmartMarket reports cited as the trade-research baseline for the where-the-hours-go framing. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | AM-127 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 The deadline-anchored slice that complements the quarterly Q2/Q3 review bulletin (AM-115). Audits the corpus's own predictions against what is actually happening in enterprise procurement 91 days out from 2 August 2026 enforcement window. Falsifiable: either three of four operational claims downgrade by 1 Oct 2026, or AM-127 moves to Not holding. Numerical threshold (3 of 4 operational, 1 of 2 governance) keeps the claim auditable on the publicly visible status of the eleven cited claims on 1 Oct 2026. Article 113 deadline distinction (2 Aug 2026 Annex III high-risk vs 2 Aug 2027 Annex II embedded products) explicitly stated up-front. Vendor claims hedged where primary documentation not located. AI-BOM procurement gap, works council consent workflow gap, and audit-evidence assembly gap are the three operational surfaces most likely to drive the downgrades. Cadence is 60-day to align with the deadline; this piece becomes the recurring quarterly state-of-AI series picking one slice of the corpus to trace through the ledger. | +58dnext review |
| Holding | AM-126 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Red-team companion to AM-043 (OWASP walkthrough). Verified primary sources: OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications 2026 (released 9 Dec 2025, 100+ contributor peer review); the eight published threats (ASI01 Agent Goal Hijack, ASI02 Tool Misuse, ASI03 Identity & Privilege Abuse, ASI06 Memory & Context Poisoning, ASI07 Insecure Inter-Agent Comm, ASI08 Cascading Failures, ASI09 Human-Agent Trust Exploitation, ASI10 Rogue Agents); MITRE ATLAS knowledge base (2025 expansion under Secure AI program with agentic-systems investigation); PyRIT v0.13.0 release (17 Apr 2026, MIT-licensed, 3.8k stars on the active microsoft/PyRIT repository after Azure/PyRIT was archived 27 Mar 2026); Garak open-source LLM scanner. Linked to AM-043 (OWASP walkthrough), AM-027 (EchoLeak), AM-029 (NHI), AM-046 (Article 12), AM-123 (observability companion). 60-day review cadence; trigger conditions include OWASP ASI04/ASI05 publication, NIST AI 600-1 generative AI profile updates, named red-team failures or breaches in production agentic deployments, MITRE ATLAS framework version updates. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | AM-125 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Three-way Compare entry surfaced under /compare/. Critical pre-publish verification: ServiceNow Q1 2026 10-Q confirms $2.4B actual Moveworks consideration (1.467B stock, 905M cash, 31M loan settlement, 4M SBC) vs the $2.85B announcement still circulating in trade press; Aisera homepage banner confirms Automation Anywhere acquisition Nov 2025 with product line continuing. Customer evidence cited: BT Now Assist pilot (55% case-summary writing time reduction, 35% case-resolution time reduction with Hena Jalil on record); ServiceNow internal 90% L1 deflection (Nenshad Bardoliwalla, framed as upper bound); Aisera customer evidence (Lifescan 65% auto-resolution; NJ Transit 60% productivity gain; Gartner-cited 90% deflection). Multi-step agent reliability caveat surfaced via CRMArena-Pro (58% single-step / 35% multi-step) plus Carnegie Mellon independent verification. Salesforce Agentforce IT context: 200 customers in 6 months vs Salesforce's 150,000 base; ARR loss to ServiceNow $42K against $13.2B FY25 revenue (Bill McDermott, Citizens Tech Conference 2 Mar 2026). Linked to AM-121 as the most recent published context piece on AI in IT operations. 60-day review cadence; trigger conditions include ServiceNow Knowledge 2026 announcements (5-7 May 2026 in Las Vegas), further Moveworks-into-Now-Assist consolidation, Aisera roadmap shifts under Automation Anywhere, pricing changes >15%. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | AM-124 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Sister piece to AM-053 (HIPAA-compliant agentic AI in healthcare). Verified primary sources: FDA 21 CFR Part 11 (text and §11.10 controls); FDA Computer Software Assurance for Production and Quality System Software draft guidance (Sept 2022, docket FDA-2022-D-0795); ISPE GAMP 5 Second Edition; EMA-PIC/S Annex 11 draft revision (published 7 Jul 2025, comments closed 11 Oct 2025, expected finalisation mid-2026, expanded from 5 to 19 pages with formalised ALCOA+, cybersecurity as core GMP requirement, alignment with GAMP 5/ICH Q9/ICH Q10); EMA Reflection Paper on AI in the medicinal product lifecycle (final, adopted by CHMP and CVMP September 2024, 1,300+ stakeholder comments). Cross-referenced existing publication coverage: AM-046 (Article 12 audit evidence), AM-053 (HIPAA), AM-029 (NHI), AM-042 (readiness diagnostic). 90-day review cadence because regulatory pieces age slower; trigger conditions include Annex 11 finalisation, FDA CSA guidance promotion to final, EU AI Act Aug 2026 enforcement window post-mortem, named pharma agentic-AI deployment failures. | +89dnext review |
| Holding | AM-123 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Companion piece to AM-122. Verified primary sources: Langfuse v3.172.1 release (1 May 2026, MIT-licensed, 26.5k stars, four-tier pricing Hobby $0/Core $29/Pro $199/Enterprise $2,499 with US/EU/Japan/HIPAA-US data residency); Arize AX docs and pricing (Phoenix free OSS plus AX Free $0/Pro $50/Enterprise custom with US/EU/CA residency); Helicone joining-Mintlify announcement (3 Mar 2026, services in maintenance mode, no migration timeline); LangSmith pricing repeated from AM-122; OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions (currently in 'Development' status, OTEL_SEMCONV_STABILITY_OPT_IN required for experimental adoption). Editorial finding: Helicone maintenance-mode status is the 2026 procurement-material fact most catalogue-vendor-list articles miss; piece names this clearly and recommends migration within 6-12 months for existing customers. 60-day review cadence; trigger conditions include OTel GenAI spec stabilising or further M&A in the open-source observability layer. | +59dnext review |
| Holding | AM-122 · pub 3 May 2026 · rev 3 May 2026 Procurement-first deep-dive on the 2026 agent-evaluation tooling category. Verified primary sources: LangChain State of Agent Engineering 2025 (n=1,340, surveyed 18 Nov-2 Dec 2025) cross-validated by McKinsey State of AI Nov 2025 (n=1,993 across 105 nations); DeepEval v3.9.9 release notes (1 Dec 2025, 15.1k stars); Braintrust public pricing (Starter $0/Pro $249/Enterprise on-prem); LangSmith pricing (Developer $0/Plus $39/Enterprise hybrid+self-host) plus published HIPAA/SOC2 Type 2/GDPR posture; Patronus AI homepage (frontier-lab repositioning). Editorial finding: brief's 64% Anaconda+Forrester eval-blocker stat doesn't resolve to a verifiable primary source; substituted LangChain n=1,340 32% quality-as-blocker figure cross-validated by McKinsey. Patronus AI repositioned in 2026 from hallucination specialist (brief framing) to 'frontier lab developing simulation research and infrastructure'; piece surfaces this as a tracked vendor pivot rather than smoothing it. 60-day review cadence because vendor pricing and product positioning churn quarterly in this category. | +59dnext review |
| Not holding | AM-014 · pub 3 Aug 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Backfilled claim. Body predates current editorial standard; spine holds, per-claim fact-check deferred to first review cycle. | —next review |
| Holding | OPS-041 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: platform algorithm and seller-policy enforcement intersected with SMB marketing AI tooling. Google Search Central, LinkedIn Engineering blog, and Etsy seller handbook all carry published 2024-2026 enforcement updates. Pattern is platform-specific (not 'AI-detection in general'); per-platform posture differs. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-040 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: Dutch self-employed social-insurance architecture intersected with AI displacement of knowledge-work ZZP cohorts. WW structurally unavailable to ZZP'ers; AOV product line designed for medical-disability surface, not demand-side; broodfondsen / schenkringen models are partial. Pairs with OPS-038 (CAO) at the labour-relations boundary. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-039 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: civil-law notarial-form requirement intersected with AI contract drafting. Statutory anchors: BW Boek 3 Art. 89 (NL), BGB §311b (DE), GmbHG §15 (DE share transfers). KNB and BNotK have published 2024-2026 guidance addressing AI-drafted contracts directly. Pairs with OPS-037 (VAT) as another regulatory-context-failure pattern in SMB AI tooling. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-038 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: EU sectoral-collective-agreement law intersected with SMB AI-VA deployment. Avv-declared CAOs (NL) and Allgemeinverbindlich-declared Tarifverträge (DE) bind all employers in scope regardless of size or association membership. Pairs with AM-120 at the multinational end of the same labour-relations surface. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-037 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: EU OSS scheme + reverse-charge VAT rules intersected with SMB AI-invoice tooling. The prompt prefix is the practical operator-side fix; pairs with OPS-039 (notary contracts) as an example of AI handling visible work but missing regulatory-context work. | +57dnext review |
| Partial | OPS-036 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Status set to Partial at publication because the IAPP-cited 'order of magnitude lower remediation cost' figure in clause 6's commentary is annotated as our-estimate; the IAPP 2024 AI Governance Profession Report characterises the remediation-cost gap as material but does not publish a precise multiple. All other clauses are anchored on cited primary sources (ABA Formal Opinion 512, IRS Circular 230, FINRA AI key topics, HHS/OCR HIPAA AI bulletin, FTC AI guidance, SEC AI-washing enforcement, EEOC AI-in-employment, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act Article 4). REVIEW: Peter to confirm whether the IAPP-derived multiple is sourceable to a more precise published figure or whether the commentary should be tightened to remove the multiplier framing entirely. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-035 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Status set to Partial at publication because category 5 (the six-conversation high-value-client window) is the only one of the five not anchored on a regulatory or licensing-board surface; the supporting evidence is operating-pattern observation plus general B2B trust-formation research, not a category-specific cited consequence. Categories 1-4 are anchored on cited court records, regulator alerts, FDA/FINRA/SEC/NCEES guidance, and customer-trust research. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-034 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Operators-register procurement piece. Cheap stack costs $20-27/month, premium stack ~$83/month, both pulled from vendor pricing pages on 28 Apr 2026. The 90-to-20-minute triage compression is grounded in published productivity-blogger benchmarks (Cal Newport, Tiago Forte, Khe Hy) — not Peter's personal measurement. Status set to Partial at publication because the supporting time-recovery figure (90+ minutes to ~20 minutes) is synthesized from external practitioner writing rather than a Peter-run benchmark; the cost math is verifiable on the cited pricing pages but the productivity claim needs a tracked-cohort replication to move to Holding. 45-day review: vendor pricing shift, Gmail filter/label changes, Superhuman or Shortwave shipping a price drop or feature gap-widener, native Gmail integration from a consumer-AI vendor. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-033 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Editorial framework piece. Inquiry-mix break-even derived from observed SMB deployment outcomes 2025-2026 and platform docs (Intercom Fin, Zendesk Suite AI, HelpScout AI, Tidio, Crisp, Microsoft Copilot Studio). Status set to Partial at publication because the break-even is sensitive to two near-term shifts (judgment-boundary model improvements and per-resolution pricing trend) that are likely to move within the 45-day cadence. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-032 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Partial at publication because the workload-to-model split is workflow-shape recommendation backed by vendor pricing pages and public evals on 29 Apr 2026, not a tracked operator-cohort replication. 45-day cadence: vendor consumer-tier feature drops (image gen on Claude, voice on Gemini Workspace), pricing changes, and arena leaderboard movement re-test the split. Replicates on tracked SMB content cohort → Holds. Replicates with caveats → stays Partial. Fails to replicate → Not holding. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-031 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Practitioner-advisory read across the three 2026 solo-founder AI-bookkeeping options. Cited against current Bench, Pilot, QuickBooks, Xero, FreshBooks, Claude and ChatGPT pricing pages plus IRS Publication 583 baseline. Status partial because the $30K MRR threshold is editorial pattern across vendor case studies and operator reviews, not a measured firm-specific outcome; vendor pricing tiers also move quarterly. Below $30K MRR the DIY stack recommendation is the load-bearing call. | +40dnext review |
| Holding | AM-120 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: EU labour co-determination law intersected with multinational AI rollout planning. Statutory anchors: BetrVG §87 (DE), WOR Art. 27 (NL), Code du travail CSE provisions (FR). Pairs with OPS-038 at the SMB end of the same labour-relations surface (CAO/Tarifvertrag at 4-employee scale). | +57dnext review |
| Holding | AM-119 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: reinsurance market structure intersected with AI catastrophic-scenario modelling. Cat-bond cyber issuance has tightened; Lloyd's Futureset programme + Munich Re Cyber Insurance Risk Report + Swiss Re sigma research carry the published modelling. Pairs with AM-116 (D&O) and OPS-014 (vendor due diligence) at the residual-exposure layer. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | AM-118 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Path B reframe: original 'pension funds publishing AI policies' frame failed verification (NBIM has zero AI papers, CalPERS landing 404'd). The honest piece is about the absence as the signal. Verifies via NBIM published position-paper list (most recent 2021); evidence of AI rating happens in stewardship reports + proxy-voting guidelines without formal anchor document. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | AM-117 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: SBOM software-supply-chain discipline intersected with EU AI Act Article 11 high-risk AI documentation. CycloneDX ML-BOM published by OWASP-adjacent CycloneDX project; SPDX 3.0 added AI components. Tooling ecosystem 12-18 months less mature than SBOM. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | AM-116 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Cross-domain: Caremark / Marchand fiduciary doctrine intersected with agentic AI as 'mission-critical' surface. The published case law is anticipatory; the D&O market response is operational. Editorial frame names the four artefacts (AI inventory, named board oversight, regular reporting, incident-response) that distinguish defensible records from vulnerable ones. | +57dnext review |
| Holding | AM-115 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Quarterly cadence — fixed dates, end of each calendar quarter. Each subsequent bulletin tests this claim against whether it actually shipped on schedule. | +87dnext review |
| Partial | AM-114 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence covers the OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic-conventions stable-promotion follow-on, the platform-consolidation arc across Datadog/New Relic AI-monitoring extensions and the Layer-4 specialists (Galileo, Arize Phoenix, Evidently), and the EU AI Act Article 9/Article 17 enforcement window opening 2 Aug 2026. Three review checks: a single-vendor four-layer coverage release reaching specialist parity at Layer 4; a standards-body publication defining agent observability primitives at the population/drift layer (CNCF OpenTelemetry GenAI working group is the candidate); a regulator enforcement action where inadequate Layer 3 or Layer 4 instrumentation was the in-scope finding. | +55dnext review |
| Partial | AM-113 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Status partial at publication: the six patterns are documented from public vendor terms (OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, AWS) but redline-success rates and which gotcha ranks most material under post-mortem are not yet measurable at scale. REVIEW: Peter. | +55dnext review |
| Partial | AM-112 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence because state-board AI guidance and FDA SaMD enforcement are both moving inside the window. Status: partial — three named state-board citations (TX, CA, NY) need confirmation against exact statements before status promotes to up. NIST AI RMF Healthcare Profile date is also pending; if it lands inside the window, the calendar updates. | +55dnext review |
| Partial | AM-111 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence covers the first round of major-vendor incident-response disclosure updates and any regulatory enforcement actions referencing inadequate agent IR. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | AM-110 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence covers the OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic-conventions stable-promotion follow-on plus the EU AI Act Article 9/Article 17 enforcement window opening 2 Aug 2026. Three review checks: a major-vendor SLA release that commits to action-correctness or output-distribution stability contractually (not just as telemetry); a standards-body publication defining agent SLA primitives explicitly; a regulator enforcement action where an inadequate agent-layer SLA was the in-scope finding. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | AM-109 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence. The primary claim depends on residual-team productivity-curve evidence from the next round of Gartner I&O tracking, LinkedIn Workforce reports, and named-vendor enterprise case data. Secondary interpretation (that WEF's 39% skill-change figure, not the 92M displacement figure, is the planning-relevant number for CIOs and CHROs) is reviewable alongside. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | AM-108 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 60-day cadence because the August 2026 enforcement window opens inside the next-after-this review. Three review checks: Commission delegated/implementing acts on Article 10 or Article 12 narrowing or widening the four-surface analysis, EDPB published guidance on agent context windows or reasoning traces, vendor patchwork closure (AWS European Sovereign Cloud GA, Anthropic EU residency tier extension, Microsoft EU Data Boundary exception narrowing, Google sovereign-controls extension). None moved → Holds. One or two → Partial with appended correction. Three → Strengthened, claim text retained. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | AM-107 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Logged as Partial at publication. Spine is defensible from Lloyd's, Marsh, Munich Re, AIG, Chubb, NAIC, and Geneva Association public material through 2024-2025. Three review checks at +60d: a settled off-the-shelf agentic-AI E&O product with standard wording from a major carrier, a reported claims case testing legacy cyber or tech-E&O response to an agent-caused loss, a regulator action requiring carriers to address autonomous-actor risk explicitly. None moved → Partial holds. One or two → Holds. All three → Strengthened. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | AM-106 · pub 29 Apr 2026 · rev 29 Apr 2026 Spine is observable from current public deployment cost data and labour-displacement research. Per-category quantitative bands tracked against next review cycle. | +55dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-030 · pub 28 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Operators-register companion to OPS-029. Three-week protocol: Week 1 specify + scaffold, Week 2 connect + ship + break, Week 3 deploy + decide. 60-day review: replication on tracked operator cohort, specific failure modes (operators who completed but did not gain claimed competence), comparable course publishes contradicting evidence. Replicates → Holds. Replicates with caveats → Partial. Fails to replicate → Not holding. | +54dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-029 · pub 28 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Operators-register companion to AM-101/102/103 build-log series. Anchored against three Q1 2026 ventures Peter shipped with AI-paired development (DealVex B2B SaaS for autodealer, Rhino-basketball club ops, agentmodeai publication). 60-day review: any of the three ventures stalls because of capacity (would weaken), any new venture launches under same model (would strengthen), specific specification-failure modes surface in defensible form. | +54dnext review |
| Holding | AM-103 · pub 28 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Build-log Issue 3. Methodology locked per decision 1.B (28 Apr 2026): deletions / (insertions + deletions) from git log --shortstat. agentmodeai: 187 commits, 92,385 ins / 14,412 del = 13.5%. Rhino-basketball: 376 commits, 392,025 ins / 34,401 del = 8.1%. DealVex not git-versioned. Two-part trackable assertion: (1) DealVex methodology lands by 27 Jul 2026, (2) Q2 rework rates stay within ±5pp of current or deviation is documented. Both hold → Holds. DealVex lands but rates diverge → Partial. DealVex does not land → Partial with explanation. | +84dnext review |
| Holding | AM-102 · pub 28 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Build-log Issue 2. Names the five publishable byline formats, why each of the four alternatives was rejected, what the chosen format structurally does + costs + requires. Three review checks at 90 days: any comparable adopts full format, any vendor publication adopts, or new entrant launches with format as default. None moved → Holds. Partial adoption → Partial. Full equivalent → Not holding (publication's distinctiveness narrows from format to execution). | +84dnext review |
| Holding | AM-101 · pub 28 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Build-log Issue 1. Names the comparable set per the editorial decision locked 28 Apr 2026 (1.A). Three review checks at 90 days: any comparable introduces tracked-claim mechanism, any vendor publication adds claim-tracking surface, or new entrant launches with ledger-as-default. None moved → Holds. Partial mechanism → Partial. Full equivalent → Not holding (and structural-distinction argument restates). | +84dnext review |
| Holding | AM-063 · pub 27 Jul 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Spine anchored to NIST AI RMF + NIST AI 600-1 + FFIEC + SR 11-7 + OCC Bulletin 2011-12 + ISACA + CSA MAESTRO. 60-day review cadence covers regulatory drift. | +54dnext review |
| Holding | AM-061 · pub 27 Jul 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Spine holds against current vendor cost-economics documentation. Per-claim quantitative bands tracked against next review cycle. | +54dnext review |
| Not holding | AM-016 · pub 27 Jul 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Backfilled claim. Body predates current editorial standard; spine holds, per-claim fact-check deferred to first review cycle. | —next review |
| Holding | AM-105 · pub 27 Apr 2026 · rev 27 Apr 2026 The clockspeed-asymmetry sequel to AM-104. Three review checks: dwell-time variable in M-Trends/DBIR/Ponemon, analyst-framework citation of offensive-security operating mode, named-incident evidence of AI-cadence intrusion defeating human-cadence detection. None moved → Partial. One or two → Holds. All three → Strengthened. | +83dnext review |
| Holding | AM-104 · pub 27 Apr 2026 · rev 27 Apr 2026 Logged at announcement + 20 days, reviewed at 60 days. Three review checks: Glasswing cohort movement, second-lab equivalent capability, explicit citation in vendor security advisories or regulatory frameworks. None moved → Partial. One or two → Holds. All three → Strengthened. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-028 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Path B operator case-study piece, stance-heavy because the named-case corpus is thin. Defensible 3-chair salon stack: one booking-and-payments platform with deposit enforcement (Booksy or Square Appointments) + consumer-tier Claude Pro or ChatGPT Plus for marketing copy + Canva (free or Pro) for visual content. Honest acknowledgement that practitioner-published material on Instagram/TikTok is the larger informal corpus that this piece does not citation-mine. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-027 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Path B operator case-study piece, real-case-heavy because Pearl and Overjet publish substantial small-practice rosters with named outcomes. Defensible 2-dentist family practice stack: one FDA-cleared radiography AI (Pearl Second Opinion or Overjet Vision AI) + one revenue-cycle AI feature + Enterprise-tier general AI for non-PHI work. Consumer-tier AI explicitly out of scope for clinical workflows. Vendor-published outcomes (Promenade 20 hrs/wk, Quest +19% Crown production, Midtown 566% case acceptance) treated as evidence-of-existence not as benchmarks. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-026 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Path B operator case-study piece, vendor-corpus-heavy because small construction firms rarely publish. Defensible 25-employee specialty contractor stack: one PM platform (Procore, Fieldwire, or Buildertrend) + AI-assisted estimating add-on + reality-capture if multi-site or warranty exposure + Enterprise AI assistant for project documents. Vendor-published 30-50% estimating time saving treated as directional, not measured. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-022 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Path B operator case-study piece, real-case-heavy because legal AI publishes more case density than other professional-services categories. Defensible 4-person firm stack: Spellbook for contracts + vLex Vincent or Westlaw/LexisNexis with AI for research + Enterprise-tier general assistant for everything outside those workflows. Consumer-tier AI explicitly out of scope for privileged work. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-021 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Path B operator case-study piece. Corpus is platform-led because individual small-firm cases are rarely published. Defensible 5-person firm stack: one books platform (Xero OS or QuickBooks+Intuit Assist) + one practice management with AI capture (Canopy) + one MCP-style integration layer (Digits MCP). Cost in low-hundreds per seat per month range. Labour saving editorially framed as 6-12 hrs/week per bookkeeper on the recurring grind. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-014 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Editorial framework piece. Each question maps to a specific public artefact (Trust Center, DPA, sub-processor list, security/incident page, termination clause) such that absence of the artefact is itself the answer. Not a substitute for ISO 27001 or SOC 2; not a guarantee. Pairs with OPS-011 (use-case filter) — vendor selection happens after the use case clears OPS-011's filter. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-011 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Editorial framework piece. The four questions are derived from the most common failure modes observed across SMB-scale agent deployments through 2025-2026. Designed for a 30-minute meeting with three people; output is a one-page record. Not a substitute for vendor due diligence, risk register, or AI policy. | +53dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-005 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Cheap-tier API cost comparison. Claude Haiku 4.5 ($1/$5 per MTok) is roughly 6-10x the per-token cost of Gemini Flash-Lite ($0.10/$0.40) or GPT-4o-mini ($0.15/$0.60) — the multiplier is real, the absolute number at SMB volume is not. Workload-shape recommendations: GPT-4o-mini for high-frequency triage, Claude Haiku for long-document review, Gemini Flash for research/synthesis. | +22dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-003 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Solo-founder buying guide. Claude Pro $17/mo annual or $20/mo monthly; ChatGPT Plus $20/mo. Two-yes filter resolves most cases; running both seats remains a defensible split for genuinely mixed workflows. | +22dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-002 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 First tooling-comparison sibling to OPS-001. Like-for-like comparison is Notion Business at $19.50 vs ClickUp Business + Brain at $21. Research Mode is the only AI feature in the comparison that flips the verdict. | +22dnext review |
| Holding | OPS-001 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 First operator-section piece. Cash math at the ~5,000-ops/mo profile favours Make.com Pro on cash-and-time combined; n8n self-hosted wins on cash alone plus data-residency and agentic extensibility. Reviewed against vendor pricing pages on 26 Apr 2026. | +22dnext review |
| Holding | AM-100 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 The publication's charter argument — asserted as testable, not aspirational. Review checks: ledger movement, correction-log activity, citation density vs comparable pieces from analyst firms / vendor blogs / hidden-AI publications. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-057 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 AI agent risk register template. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) European AI Office Article 9 enforcement guidance (expected Q3 2026) that may codify specific register column requirements, (2) ISO/IEC 42001 implementation guidance that may map onto the register format, (3) major case studies in 2026 enforcement actions that establish precedent for what constitutes an adequate register, (4) tooling vendor releases of agent risk register modules (Microsoft Purview, ServiceNow GRC, Archer, OneTrust have signalled native modules in development for 2026). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-056 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 AI agent ROI calculation methodology. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) major model-pricing changes (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft) that shift input 1 materially, (2) regulatory enforcement that establishes the realistic compliance cost (input 4) for various deployment profiles, (3) emerging case studies with documented ROI realisation that allow the methodology's outputs to be benchmarked against actual enterprise records, (4) finance-function-specific ROI methodology guidance from major consulting firms (McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Deloitte) that may shift the methodology baseline. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-055 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Retail and logistics agentic AI patterns. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) FTC enforcement actions on algorithmic pricing (the FTC has signalled the area as a priority and the first major settlement could come in 2026), (2) major retail-AI public reversals (the Klarna pattern recurring at other Fortune 500 retailers would establish a stronger precedent), (3) state consumer-protection law amendments specifically addressing AI-mediated retail (California AB 3030 has retail-AI provisions; other states are following), (4) supply-chain disruptions producing high-profile failures of forecasting-agent deployments. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-054 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Public-sector agentic AI procurement constraints. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) the OMB M-24-10 successor framework (post-Executive-Order-14110 federal AI guidance is actively evolving), (2) FedRAMP framework updates including the AI-specific authorisation provisions in development, (3) state-level AI procurement laws (Colorado, Utah, Texas, California, Washington) that establish state-specific procurement bars, (4) the NIST AI Safety Institute's outputs that increasingly serve as de facto federal procurement criteria, (5) emerging case-law on public-sector AI deployment liability. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-053 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 HIPAA-compliant healthcare agentic AI playbook. 60-day review cadence given active OCR enforcement environment. Watches: (1) OCR enforcement actions specific to AI-related HIPAA cases (the first major settlement under the AI overlay is expected in 2026), (2) HHS guidance on AI-specific HIPAA implementation (the 2024 NPRM on the HIPAA Security Rule includes AI-relevant language; the final rule is expected in 2026), (3) state-level health-AI laws (California AB 3030 and others) that overlay onto HIPAA, (4) vendor BAA template revisions specifically for agentic AI workflows. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-052 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 AI agent contract exit clauses. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) emerging case-law on AI vendor contract disputes that establishes precedent for specific clause language, (2) major-vendor template updates that shift the negotiation baseline (Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google enterprise template revisions are watched closely by procurement counsel), (3) industry-standard template publishers (the IACCM Contract Standards Group, the IAPP, sector-specific procurement consortia) publishing AI-agent-specific exit-clause language, (4) regulatory guidance under EU AI Act Article 26 (deployer obligations) that may codify some of the eight provisions as compliance requirements rather than negotiation choices. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-051 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Centralised vs federated AI governance organisational design. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) Fortune 500 organisational design announcements that shift the dominant pattern (Chief AI Officer org design at large enterprises is still actively forming; expect 1-2 high-profile public reorganisations per quarter in 2026), (2) regulatory enforcement actions that establish a documentation consistency bar that purely federated models cannot meet, (3) consulting industry reports (McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Deloitte) that publish patterns from their advisory engagements, (4) emerging variant models (e.g., the AI Center of Excellence model that some enterprises are positioning as a fourth option). | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-050 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 A2A protocol piece. 60-day review cadence given active protocol evolution. Watches: (1) A2A specification version updates and reference implementation maturity, (2) inflection in vendor support beyond the announcement-day partner set (e.g., Anthropic and Microsoft have not committed to A2A as of April 2026; their positioning may shift), (3) competing or parallel standards (Microsoft has hinted at alternative inter-agent primitives in their Copilot platform; Anthropic has internal context-isolation primitives that may or may not converge on A2A), (4) regulatory positioning (the EU AI Act's Article 9 risk-management requirements may begin to reference A2A or equivalent in 2026-2027 enforcement guidance). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-049 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Multi-agent architecture playbook. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) the A2A (agent-to-agent) protocol's adoption trajectory through 2026 (claim AM-050 covers in detail), (2) Anthropic Managed Agents and OpenAI Operator's evolving multi-agent primitives, (3) emerging case-law and regulatory guidance specific to multi-agent failure attribution (currently underdeveloped; expect first major precedent in 2026-2027), (4) MCP (Model Context Protocol) adoption that affects how broker-mediated patterns get implemented. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-048 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 NIST AI RMF mapping. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) NIST AI RMF version updates (NIST has signalled an AI RMF 2.0 framework revision in development for late 2026), (2) Generative AI Profile updates (the July 2024 profile is the current authoritative addendum; further profiles for agentic systems specifically are expected), (3) U.S. federal procurement guidance that elevates NIST AI RMF from voluntary to operational (pending under the post-Executive Order 14110 successor framework), (4) NIST AI Safety Institute outputs that revise the technical risk taxonomy. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-047 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Head of AI Governance role specification. 60-day review cadence given active market formation. Watches: (1) Forrester / Gartner / IDC role-tracking data revisions, (2) major-enterprise role announcements that shift compensation benchmarks (the 2026 cohort of Chief AI Officers at Fortune 50 enterprises will set the C-level compensation precedent), (3) emerging variant titles that consolidate or fragment the accountability set (Chief Responsible AI Officer, Chief AI Risk Officer, AI Governance Committee Chair are early variants), (4) regulatory frameworks (EU AI Act Article 14 human oversight, U.S. state AI laws naming-an-accountable-individual provisions) that codify or shift the role's legal exposure. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-046 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Article 12 audit-evidence template specification. 60-day review cadence given active regulator guidance development. Watches: (1) European AI Office guidance on Article 12 specifically (the Office's first detailed enforcement guidance is expected in Q3 2026 ahead of the August enforcement window), (2) Member-State-level retention period clarifications (Germany BfDI and France CNIL have already issued sector-specific guidance that extends the retention floor in some contexts), (3) ISO/IEC 42001 update that may formalise a parallel record-keeping standard, (4) vendor-platform native support for the 14-field structure (Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google all have partial implementations as of April 2026). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-045 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 EchoLeak / cross-agent prompt-injection class analysis. 60-day review cadence given the active research front. Watches: (1) new CVEs in the cross-agent prompt-injection class (multiple research groups are actively probing major agent platforms; expect 2-4 additional public CVEs in 2026), (2) vendor-side architectural responses (Microsoft's post-EchoLeak hardening, Anthropic's Managed Agents context-isolation primitives, OpenAI's Operator sandboxing), (3) regulator response under EU AI Act Article 15 (cybersecurity provisions) which is likely to formalise the cross-agent prompt-injection class as a foreseeable risk by Q4 2026. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-044 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Six-case agent failure case-study analysis. 90-day review cadence. All cases are publicly documented in primary sources (Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, The Markup investigation, public X/LinkedIn posts by founders and engineers, mainstream UK news coverage). Watches: (1) new high-profile incidents that establish additional failure modes beyond the three documented, (2) updates to the legal record (the Air Canada Civil Resolution Tribunal decision is the highest-leverage precedent for agent-binding doctrine and remains under-litigated in 2026), (3) vendor-side public statements that revise the documented record (e.g., Replit's response to the database-wipe incident has shifted vendor disclosure norms). | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-043 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 OWASP Agentic AI Top 10 enterprise walkthrough. 90-day review cadence. Watches: (1) revisions to the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative threat catalogue (active project, version revisions expected through 2026), (2) new threat classes added to the catalogue (e.g., agent-communication poisoning in multi-agent systems is an emerging T11 candidate), (3) regulatory enforcement actions that establish case-law-equivalent guidance on which threat classes constitute negligence under the EU AI Act. | +82dnext review |
| Holding | AM-042 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 10-question agentic AI readiness diagnostic. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) methodology changes to the Stanford Digital Economy Lab cohort identification or McKinsey AI-high-performer definition that would shift the cohort thresholds, (2) regulatory enforcement that materially changes the bar for any individual question (especially Q5 audit evidence and Q9 multi-jurisdiction posture), (3) major IAM platform releases (Okta, Microsoft Entra) that change the practical answerability of Q1 (non-human identity), (4) governance role market data revisions that change Q10 (named accountable individual). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-041 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Procurement playbook claim is scoped to enterprise agentic AI procurement specifically. The six-stage sequence is portable to adjacent procurement categories (data platforms, observability stacks) but is not optimised for them. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) major changes to any of the four constituent frameworks (build-vs-buy criteria, the 60-question RFP, GAUGE dimensions, vendor landscape), (2) regulatory enforcement that materially changes the documentation bar at any stage, (3) procurement-platform vendors that ship native integration of any combination of the constituent frameworks (would compress engineering work substantially). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-040 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Aggregate state-of-the-year claim drawing from approximately 60 specific source claims tracked elsewhere on the ledger. 60-day review cadence aligned with the EU AI Act enforcement window opening 2 August 2026. Watches: (1) early enforcement actions after 2 August that revise the practical compliance bar, (2) major repricing or model-tier changes at Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or Microsoft, (3) accelerated convergence between the bimodal cohorts driven by IAM platform releases (Okta, Microsoft Entra, Ping) shipping native agent-NHI primitives, (4) regulatory actions in the United States (state AI laws, OCR enforcement spike) that change the multi-jurisdictional compliance posture. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-039 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise procurement of agentic AI platforms in 2026. The four credible plays are based on observed market share, enterprise reference customers, and platform completeness. Smaller specialised vendors (Cohere, Mistral, others) compete on specific verticals or use cases but do not currently meet the platform-completeness bar for general enterprise agentic AI procurement. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) major repricing or model-tier changes at any of the four vendors, (2) regulatory enforcement actions that materially affect one vendor's enterprise-suitability profile, (3) entry of a credible fifth platform (most plausibly via the Linux Foundation Agentic AI Foundation member firms or via a major systems-integrator-backed neutral platform). | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-038 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise procurement decisions in 2026. The technical specification of MCP itself is stable and not in dispute. The procurement framing of MCP as a binary adoption question is structurally inadequate for environments where developer tools, productivity SaaS, and agent platforms ship MCP support without uniform IT governance review. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) Linux Foundation Agentic AI Foundation governance decisions on MCP that change the protocol's enterprise-suitability profile, (2) major vendors that lock down MCP server connections behind enterprise-admin approval (currently most do not), (3) emergence of MCP-server allow-lists or governance directories shipped at the IAM platform layer. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-037 · pub 26 Apr 2026 · rev 26 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise environments running standard IAM stacks (Okta, Microsoft Entra, Ping, ForgeRock, JumpCloud, or comparable). Smaller environments and identity-greenfield deployments may have different optimal paths. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) IAM vendor releases that ship native agent-NHI primitives at the platform layer (Okta for AI Agents launched 30 April 2026 is the bellwether; Microsoft Entra and Ping have signalled comparable releases), (2) regulatory enforcement actions where the in-scope finding was an inadequate NHI control on an AI agent, (3) emergence of standards (NIST AI RMF revisions, ISO/IEC, OWASP Agentic AI Top 10) that explicitly define agent NHI obligations. | +52dnext review |
| Holding | AM-036 · pub 25 Apr 2026 · rev 25 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise environments, where the configuration-shift pattern is dominant. Smaller organisations and individual-contributor environments still see substantial unsanctioned-tool shadow AI of the 2024 shape. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) major vendors that lock down Custom GPT / Copilot custom agent / MCP configuration behind enterprise-admin approval (currently most do not), (2) regulatory enforcement actions where the in-scope deployment was a configuration shift on an approved tool rather than a new tool, (3) enterprise-IAM platforms that ship native non-human-identity discovery for AI agents. | +51dnext review |
| Holding | AM-035 · pub 25 Apr 2026 · rev 25 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise agentic AI deployments specifically, not to AI systems broadly. The Act's full text covers many provisions outside agentic AI scope; this piece narrows to the operational obligations that bind a typical enterprise agentic deployment in 2026. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) Commission delegated acts that further define Annex III categories or add new high-risk categories, (2) the first published EU enforcement actions against agentic AI deployments after 2 Aug 2026, (3) Member-State implementations that diverge on enforcement intensity, (4) any extensions or postponements of the August 2026 deadline (none currently signalled). | +51dnext review |
| Holding | AM-034 · pub 25 Apr 2026 · rev 25 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to enterprise procurement decisions in 2026. Vendors are actively blurring the distinction in marketing — the line between 'assistant with tool use' and 'agent with bounded scope' has narrowed technically but is still procedurally distinct because of who signs the approval, what audit evidence is required, and what blast radius is being underwritten. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) regulatory frameworks that explicitly define one or both categories with operative legal effect (EU AI Act delegated acts especially), (2) major vendors collapsing the product naming, (3) NIST AI RMF revisions that adopt or reject the distinction. | +51dnext review |
| Holding | AM-033 · pub 25 Apr 2026 · rev 25 Apr 2026 Claim is scoped to how the figure is interpreted, not to whether the survey itself is sound. Survey methodology is competent for what it measures (self-reported strategic attribution by senior leadership). The leak is in the downstream citation chain. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) audited reproductions of the figure under third-party measurement, (2) McKinsey State of AI 2026 successor publication, (3) revisions to the McKinsey methodology that narrow the EBIT-attribution definition. | +51dnext review |
| Holding | AM-032 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 First piece in planned vertical-industry series. Cluster G anchor. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) major ESA (EBA/ESMA/EIOPA) publishing agentic-AI-specific guidance, (2) DORA or EU AI Act enforcement action redefining liability-transfer boundaries, (3) industry-body vendor contract templates closing DORA third-party-risk gap. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-031 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Third of three claim-archive signature pieces (after AM-029 Stanford 88% and AM-030 McKinsey 23%). 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) frontier model crossing 50% on TheAgentCompany without corresponding deployment-pattern change, (2) cross-enterprise analyses showing capability-wait deployments equivalent to governance-discipline deployments, (3) benchmark refresh shifting the easy/medium/hard distribution such that more of the enterprise task space lands in the viable scope envelope. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-030 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Claim-archive signature piece analysing McKinsey State of AI 2025 (ANA-2026-006). Cross-validated against Stanford DEL ACA-2026-003, Gartner ANA-2026-001/002, CMU ACA-2026-004. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) subsequent large-sample datasets showing 23% and 6% compressing toward 39% experimenting, (2) cross-enterprise analyses disproving the preconditions framing, (3) analyst frameworks converging on preconditions-style framing. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-029 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Signature piece framing. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) a frontier-model generation collapsing the 88%/12% gap without governance change, (2) cross-enterprise studies showing dimensional scoring models don't predict deployment outcomes, (3) regulatory frameworks evolving to score deployment quality beyond risk-tier classification. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-028 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Claim scoped to enterprise agentic AI procurement specifically. 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) aggregate analyses showing partner outcomes statistically indistinguishable from buy, (2) major consultancies adopting three-path templates (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey), (3) regulatory procurement frameworks structuring partner-style engagements as a distinct third path. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-027 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Claim scoped to enterprise agentic AI business cases specifically (not enterprise SaaS generally). 60-day review cadence. Watches: (1) studies showing single-scenario NPVs produce outcomes equivalent to three-scenario, (2) aggregate post-18-month audits reordering the anti-pattern ranking (e.g., compliance understatement dominant over vendor-TCO framing), (3) regulatory changes (EU AI Act review, NIST AI RMF updates) that materially shift compliance-cost dynamics. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-026 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Claim scoped to enterprise agentic AI procurement specifically (not enterprise SaaS generally). 60-day review cadence. Watches: (a) anonymised procurement-committee case studies showing equivalent outcomes from generic RFPs, (b) vendor self-disclosure movements that obviate the RFP artifact, (c) regulatory procurement frameworks (EU AI Act Article 68 public-sector procurement) converging on similar dimensions. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-025 · pub 24 Apr 2026 · rev 24 Apr 2026 Based on April 2026 corpus review of published governance-framework deployments + post-cutover analysis of the 88% failure rate (Stanford DEL ACA-2026-003), the 28% I&O pay-off rate (Gartner ANA-2026-002), and the 40% projected cancellation rate (Gartner ANA-2026-001). 60-day review cadence with explicit watches on (a) cross-enterprise studies testing dimensional scoring's predictive power, (b) analyst firms adopting similar instrumented-dimension models, (c) regulatory frameworks evolving to score deployment quality vs only classify risk tier. | +50dnext review |
| Holding | AM-023 · pub 23 Aug 2025 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Based on Google's 10 Apr 2026 rollout (8 markets, 8 partner platforms), Semrush + ppc.land + WinBuzzer coverage, the OpenTable/Reserve-with-Google integration pattern. Review cadence is 60 days with explicit watch on whether a second vertical agentic-search rollout lands before end-2026. | +45dnext review |
| Holding | AM-024 · pub 20 Apr 2026 · rev 20 Apr 2026 Based on 2025-2026 observation of vendor-claim → analyst-note → trade-press → CIO-deck citation chains. Stanford DEL 12/88 bimodal + Gartner 7 Apr 2026 28% I&O pay-off as anchoring evidence. 60-day review cadence with explicit watches on (a) third-party verification infrastructure emerging, (b) RFPs requiring citation-review schedules, (c) our own archive's Weakened-verdict rate. | +46dnext review |
| Holding | AM-121 · pub 2 May 2026 · rev 2 May 2026 Deep-dive landscape piece on AI in IT operations: ServiceNow Now Assist (Vancouver Sep 2023 → Pro tier Xanadu Sep 2024 → three-tier Apr 2026 restructure), Moveworks closed at $2.4B not the announced $2.85B (per ServiceNow Q1 FY26 10-Q), Microsoft 365 Copilot UK Gov + HMRC trials, Datadog Bits AI (8pp YoY growth contribution from AI-native cohort per 10-Q), Dynatrace Intelligence (Jan 2026 launch), Salesforce Agentforce IT (200 customers in 6 months vs ServiceNow's 8,600 + 40% ITSM share per IDC). 14 A-grade primary sources (SEC filings, government publications, vendor press releases on company URLs, peer-reviewed papers, audited earnings transcripts), 17 B-grade analyst-house digests + named-customer trade press, 0 C-grade vendor-only claims. Auditability/lock-in axis (Bardoliwalla framing) is simultaneously ServiceNow's strongest pitch and ServiceNow's largest customer risk. Review cadence 60-day because Now Assist packaging shifts every 6 months and the agentic-AI cancellation curve (Gartner) will be visible by Q3 2026. | +60dnext review |
| Not holding | AM-018 · pub 19 Jul 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Based on Stanford DEL 2026 bimodal distribution (12%/88%), Gartner Q1 2026 28% pay-off rate, OneReach 2026 171% average, Futurum 71% operational median vs 40% high-automation. Anthropic AP-processing + Salesforce tier-1 support + Microsoft Copilot-Dynamics as back-office case anchors. 60-day review for counter-evidence watch. | —next review |
| Not holding | AM-017 · pub 19 Jul 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Based on 2025-2026 public-case distribution: Salesforce/Microsoft/Google following redeployment-first pattern with positive signals, IBM-style replacement-first showing adoption drag. Stanford DEL 2026 + Gartner Q1 2026 as analytical anchors. 60-day review cadence because workforce-transition frames can shift quickly with any major public reversal. | —next review |
| Holding | AM-013 · pub 19 Apr 2026 · rev 19 Apr 2026 60-day cadence because the Gartner Q2 I&O update lands inside the window. Secondary interpretation (that Q1 governance frameworks are shaped by EU AI Act compliance requirements first and threat-model completeness second) is reviewable alongside the primary claim. | +45dnext review |
| Holding | AM-003 · pub 19 Apr 2026 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Claim created at publish; review in 30 days — pricing-tier claims are highly time-sensitive. Verify $200/month Pro tier availability and Claude Opus comparison pricing monthly. | +15dnext review |
| Not holding | AM-002 · pub 19 Apr 2026 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Claim created at publish; review in 60 days. Re-verify Carnegie Mellon agent-completion benchmark + IDC $3.50 ROI number against next round of publications. | —next review |
| Holding | AM-001 · pub 19 Apr 2026 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Claim created at publish; review in 60 days. BCG + McKinsey 2024-2025 data; re-verify 70% people-process split against Q4 2026 McKinsey MGI update. | +45dnext review |
| Holding | AM-021 · pub 16 Aug 2025 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Based on Gravitex 87%/27% split, LuckiWi's 82% of Fortune 100 using Six Sigma, Gartner's 7 Apr 2026 finding that 57% of failed I&O deployments cited 'too much too fast'. Claim reframes the causal arrow: the pre-built measurement environment is what matters, Six Sigma is one path that produces it. | +45dnext review |
| Partial | AM-015 · pub 1 Aug 2025 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Backfilled claim. Body predates current editorial standard; spine holds, per-claim fact-check deferred to first review cycle. | +45dnext review |
| Not holding | AM-022 · pub 06 Aug 2025 · rev 28 Apr 2026 Based on Stanford DEL's 2026 playbook (51 deployments), OneReach 171% average + Futurum 71% median productivity vs 40% high-automation, Gartner's 28%-pay-off finding on the 88% side. Watches for benchmarks that show the distribution tightening around the mean or counter-evidence of IT-led 300%+ deployments. | —next review |
| Holding | AM-019 · pub 01 Aug 2025 · rev 19 Apr 2026 Based on the 2026 case-study spread (47-facility global manufacturer at 42% downtime reduction, pharma at 30% in six months, industry median 25-30%). Watching for a parallel-log deployment clearing 30% sustained over 12 months. | +45dnext review |
Each claim links to the piece it came from and the review cadence Peter set when publishing it. How this works →
How often do these claims still hold?
Holding rate, verdict distribution, cadence health, recent corrections, and upcoming reviews — the aggregate trust signal across every claim above.
Vendors we will and won't affiliate-link
The publication earns affiliate commission from a subset of vendors it covers. The rule: never affiliate-link a vendor whose tracked claim has been Partial or Not holding. The rule is enforced in code — the build fails if a blocked vendor link slips through. This panel is the public face of that firewall. See /disclosures/ for the full editorial framework.
| Vendor | Status | Why |
|---|---|---|
| n8n ai-tooling-subscription · operators | Eligible (no audited claim) | No tracked claims about "n8n" yet. Affiliate program not yet enrolled — no commission earned today. |
| Anthropic ai-tooling-subscription · enterprise / operators | Eligible | All tracked claims about "Anthropic" are positive. Affiliate program not yet enrolled — no commission earned today. |