Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
PsychologicalWar.orgHistory before hype.

COGNITIVE LIBERTY · SECTION 01 OF 07

Where cognitive liberty begins

Foundations, Rights, and the Sovereign Interior

Defines cognitive liberty as a rights-oriented framework for freedom of thought, mental privacy, identity continuity, and agency—while keeping outward conduct accountable.

A · DEFINITION & SCOPE

What this section means—and what it does not

Definition

Cognitive liberty is used here as an emerging umbrella for mental self-determination: freedom of thought, mental privacy, agency, identity continuity, and the ability to question, revise, or leave an AI-mediated relationship. It is a research and policy framework, not a claim that every jurisdiction has enacted one uniform standalone right.

Outside scope

It does not immunize threats, fraud, stalking, discrimination, coercion, or violence. It does not make every private company a state actor, and it does not turn every recommendation or safety boundary into censorship.

B · WHY IT MATTERS

The rights and governance problem

AI can convert traces—searches, pauses, language, gaze, physiology, social graphs, and neural signals—into probabilistic stories about a person. Institutions may act on those stories before the person has acted. The central boundary is therefore between protected interior life and accountable outward conduct.

Freedom of thoughtMental privacyIdentity continuityAgencyExplanation and appeal

C · KEY DISTINCTIONS

Do not collapse unlike things

Thought

Private belief, doubt, imagination, emotion, curiosity, memory, or speculation.

Inference

A model-generated estimate about a person, not direct access to the person’s mind.

Conduct

Observable action that may be evaluated under ordinary law, policy, or contractual rules.

Consequence

A decision affecting access, liberty, employment, education, benefits, reputation, or safety.

D · CLAIM REGISTER

Three bounded claims with twenty evidence stages each

Each claim preserves the difference between an artifact, its availability, audience exposure, belief, conduct, and downstream effect. “Not assessed” is retained rather than converted into an implied result.

CL-001LEGAL

Primary legal text located

Freedom of thought and the forum internum have strong protection in international human-rights law; the exact application to AI-derived mental-state inference remains developing.

Source scope
The treaty text and UN analysis support the legal foundation. They do not resolve every jurisdiction, private-actor duty, remedy, or inference technology.
Do not infer
Do not infer that every AI personalization practice violates an absolute right.
Competing explanations
Where outcomes are discussed, ordinary ranking changes, user choice, market incentives, security requirements, model error, institutional process, and non-AI causes remain possible unless claim-specific evidence excludes them.
Affected-person context
WIP.54 retains normative stakeholder requirements for neurotechnology users but no project-run affected-person session. Human testing remains PREPARED_NOT_EXECUTED.
Rights and privacy implications
Potential implications include freedom of thought or expression, mental and data privacy, equality, autonomy, identity, notice, due process, and effective remedy; legal scope remains jurisdiction-specific.
Correction trigger
Replace or narrow the claim if authoritative interpretation or binding law materially changes the scope.

Claim-specific sources

WIP.54 evidence overlays

Review all twenty evidence stages
Artifact or event existence
CONFIRMED_BY_PRIMARY_LEGAL_TEXT
Content status
PRIMARY_TEXT_REVIEWED_AT_BOUNDED_CLAIM_LEVEL
Coordination
NOT_APPLICABLE
Actor identity
LEGISLATIVE_OR_TREATY_BODY_IDENTIFIED
Sponsorship or direction
PUBLIC_LEGISLATIVE_OR_INTERNATIONAL_PROCESS
Intent
BOUNDED_TO_STATED_LEGAL_PURPOSE
Output
ENACTED_OR_FORMALLY_PUBLISHED_TEXT
Distribution
OFFICIAL_PUBLICATION_CONFIRMED
Availability
PUBLICLY_AVAILABLE
Reach
NOT_ASSESSED
Exposure
NOT_ASSESSED
Attention
NOT_ASSESSED
Recall
NOT_ASSESSED
Comprehension
NOT_ASSESSED
Credibility
LEGAL_AUTHORITY_IS_JURISDICTION_AND_SCOPE_SPECIFIC
Belief or attitude
NOT_APPLICABLE
Intention
NOT_APPLICABLE
Behavior
IMPLEMENTATION_NOT_MEASURED
Operational outcome
ENFORCEMENT_OR_COMPLIANCE_OUTCOME_NOT_ASSESSED
Strategic effect
NOT_ESTABLISHED
Questions for specialist review
  1. Is the claim phrased no more strongly than the cited sources support?
  2. Are legal scope, exceptions, and currentness accurately bounded?
  3. Does the claim preserve the distinction between inference, exposure, belief, behavior, and effect?
CL-002NORMATIVE

Normative proposal

Cognitive liberty is used here as an emerging umbrella framework, not as a universally codified standalone legal right.

Source scope
The owner reports synthesize freedom of thought, mental privacy, agency, and identity. Current legal markers remain fragmented.
Do not infer
Do not describe project terminology as settled global law.
Competing explanations
Where outcomes are discussed, ordinary ranking changes, user choice, market incentives, security requirements, model error, institutional process, and non-AI causes remain possible unless claim-specific evidence excludes them.
Affected-person context
UNESCO and OECD frameworks support participation and rights safeguards; they do not substitute for first-person review. No project participant was recruited.
Rights and privacy implications
Potential implications include freedom of thought or expression, mental and data privacy, equality, autonomy, identity, notice, due process, and effective remedy; legal scope remains jurisdiction-specific.
Correction trigger
Revise if a broadly applicable binding instrument codifies a defined standalone right.

Claim-specific sources

WIP.54 evidence overlays

Review all twenty evidence stages
Artifact or event existence
OWNER_SUPPLIED NORMATIVE PROPOSAL PRESERVED
Content status
NORMATIVE POLICY OR DESIGN POSITION
Coordination
NOT APPLICABLE
Actor identity
PROJECT EDITORIAL POSITION IDENTIFIED
Sponsorship or direction
OWNER SUPPLIED AND EDITORIALLY INTEGRATED
Intent
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND GOVERNANCE ADVOCACY
Output
PUBLIC PRINCIPLE OR PROPOSAL
Distribution
WEBSITE PUBLICATION
Availability
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AFTER DEPLOYMENT
Reach
NOT MEASURED
Exposure
NOT MEASURED
Attention
NOT MEASURED
Recall
NOT MEASURED
Comprehension
NOT MEASURED
Credibility
NORMATIVE; NOT PRESENTED AS SETTLED LAW
Belief or attitude
NOT CLAIMED
Intention
NOT CLAIMED
Behavior
NOT CLAIMED
Operational outcome
NOT CLAIMED
Strategic effect
NOT_ESTABLISHED
Questions for specialist review
  1. Is the claim phrased no more strongly than the cited sources support?
  2. Are legal scope, exceptions, and currentness accurately bounded?
  3. Does the claim preserve the distinction between inference, exposure, belief, behavior, and effect?
CL-003NORMATIVE

Normative proposal

Private thought, belief, doubt, and imagination should be distinguished from outward conduct; a probabilistic inference should not substitute for evidence of harmful action.

Source scope
This is a normative rights and governance principle informed by risk-management guidance, not a universal immunity from investigation or accountability.
Do not infer
Do not imply threats, fraud, stalking, or violence are protected merely because thought preceded conduct.
Competing explanations
Where outcomes are discussed, ordinary ranking changes, user choice, market incentives, security requirements, model error, institutional process, and non-AI causes remain possible unless claim-specific evidence excludes them.
Affected-person context
Bounded enforcement records document job-applicant and consumer consequences from automated decisions; they are illustrative, not population representative.
Rights and privacy implications
Potential implications include freedom of thought or expression, mental and data privacy, equality, autonomy, identity, notice, due process, and effective remedy; legal scope remains jurisdiction-specific.
Correction trigger
Reassess wording when sector-specific law or high-quality evidence clarifies necessary exceptions.

Claim-specific sources

WIP.54 evidence overlays

Review all twenty evidence stages
Artifact or event existence
OWNER_SUPPLIED NORMATIVE PROPOSAL PRESERVED
Content status
NORMATIVE POLICY OR DESIGN POSITION
Coordination
NOT APPLICABLE
Actor identity
PROJECT EDITORIAL POSITION IDENTIFIED
Sponsorship or direction
OWNER SUPPLIED AND EDITORIALLY INTEGRATED
Intent
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND GOVERNANCE ADVOCACY
Output
PUBLIC PRINCIPLE OR PROPOSAL
Distribution
WEBSITE PUBLICATION
Availability
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AFTER DEPLOYMENT
Reach
NOT MEASURED
Exposure
NOT MEASURED
Attention
NOT MEASURED
Recall
NOT MEASURED
Comprehension
NOT MEASURED
Credibility
NORMATIVE; NOT PRESENTED AS SETTLED LAW
Belief or attitude
NOT CLAIMED
Intention
NOT CLAIMED
Behavior
NOT CLAIMED
Operational outcome
NOT CLAIMED
Strategic effect
NOT_ESTABLISHED
Questions for specialist review
  1. Is the claim phrased no more strongly than the cited sources support?
  2. Are legal scope, exceptions, and currentness accurately bounded?
  3. Does the claim preserve the distinction between inference, exposure, belief, behavior, and effect?

E · AFFECTED-PERSON & COMMUNITY EVIDENCE

Whose experience is represented—and whose remains missing

These records are public, consent-aware, and bounded. Illustrative accounts are not converted into prevalence estimates or universal community views.

CLAE-002-GIG-MINORITY-DATA-RIGHTSGig workers and ethnic-minority communities navigating data rightsIllustrative and analytically rich, not statistically representative.
Source role
Commissioned qualitative affected-person research
Consent/privacy boundary
Use only aggregated public findings; do not reproduce identifying footage, metadata, or private transcripts.
Supports
Lived-experience barriers to notice, correction, language access, and practical remedy.
Does not establish
Prevalence for all gig workers or minority communities, platform intent, or a measured effect size.
Selection and nonresponse limits
Purposive qualitative sample; 28 ethnic-minority and 15 gig-economy participants; not a probability sample.
Risk boundary
Avoid retraumatization, immigration-status inference, or identifying participants through quotes and location combinations.
Correction/withdrawal
Correction path: /corrections; source withdrawal follows the publisher's public research process.
CLAE-009-COMPANION-USERS-MIXEDCompanion-chatbot users reporting support, relational value, and mixed risksIllustrative mixed user evidence, not population representative.
Source role
Peer-reviewed user research plus ongoing regulatory inquiry
Consent/privacy boundary
Use aggregated findings only; do not expose medical, sexual, family, grief, or crisis disclosures.
Supports
User-valued support, relational design, mixed use patterns, and need for exit, memory, disclosure, crisis, and dependency safeguards.
Does not establish
Clinical efficacy, population prevalence, causality, universal harm, or conclusions from the still-open inquiry.
Selection and nonresponse limits
Self-selected and high-engagement samples; public-review bias; limited longitudinal evidence.
Risk boundary
Avoid clinical diagnosis, crisis advice, identity enrichment, and quotation of sensitive disclosures.
Correction/withdrawal
Correction path: /corrections; reopen with longitudinal, disengagement, crisis, and inquiry outcomes.
CLAE-010-NEUROTECH-USERSNeurotechnology users and participants as rights-bearing stakeholdersNormative requirement rather than empirical participant evidence.
Source role
Intergovernmental normative and implementation frameworks
Consent/privacy boundary
No personal neural or health data is collected or published by this project.
Supports
The need to include patients, research participants, workers, consumers, disabled people, and device users in governance and remedy design.
Does not establish
Actual consent quality, device accuracy, or user outcomes in any specific deployment.
Selection and nonresponse limits
No project-run affected-person recruitment; human testing remains unexecuted.
Risk boundary
Never publish neural, medical, home, workplace, or wearable identifiers without explicit authority.
Correction/withdrawal
Correction path: /corrections; reopen if actual authorized participant evidence is supplied.

F · SCIENTIFIC & LEGAL CURRENTNESS

Measurement validity and jurisdiction remain separate questions

A law may regulate a system without validating its scientific claims. A model may detect a signal without validly inferring an emotion, intention, personality, loyalty, or vulnerability.

CLSCI-001-NEURAL-MEASUREMENTDirect neural measurement and neural-data interpretationNORMATIVE_AND_METHOD_BOUNDARY; NO_UNIVERSAL_VALIDITY_CLAIM
Construct validity
NOT_ESTABLISHED_GENERALLY; depends on the claimed construct and validation design.
Generalization
Laboratory decoding does not automatically generalize to field use or a different person.
Calibration/base rates
Must be demonstrated for the intended population and decision threshold. Low-prevalence targets can yield harmful false positives even with apparently high accuracy.
Error and disparate-impact burden
Consequences differ by use; both error types require explicit accounting. Disability, age, medication, language, culture, equipment fit, and access can affect burden.
Action, override, remedy
No consequential action should treat inference as direct inner-state knowledge. Human review must have authority, relevant expertise, and access to uncertainty—not ceremonial approval. Notice, data access, correction, deletion, independent review, and downstream propagation of corrections are required safeguards.
CLSCI-009-LAB-TO-FIELDLaboratory performance versus field validityPREDEPLOYMENT_EVALUATION_IS_NOT_FIELD_CERTIFICATION
Construct validity
The benchmark must actually measure the claimed real-world capability.
Generalization
NIST identifies generalization and real-world informativeness as open measurement questions.
Calibration/base rates
Calibration can drift and requires monitoring. Deployment prevalence can differ sharply from benchmark class balance.
Error and disparate-impact burden
Field consequences require outcome tracking, not score reporting alone. Subgroup performance and access conditions can change after deployment.
Action, override, remedy
Consequential use requires field validation and ongoing monitoring. Monitor override quality and whether humans defer blindly. Incident capture, correction propagation, rollback, and affected-person remedy.
CLSCI-010-DECISION-CONSEQUENCEFrom inference output to consequential actionCONSEQUENCE_AND_REMEDY_ARE_SEPARATE_FROM_MODEL_ACCURACY
Construct validity
A score must measure the decision construct rather than a convenient proxy.
Generalization
A model valid in one institution or period may not transfer.
Calibration/base rates
Decision thresholds must reflect error cost, legal duties, and uncertainty. Low-base-rate adverse events can produce many false flags.
Error and disparate-impact burden
Track denial, accusation, removal, discipline, and missed opportunity separately. Audit outcomes by protected and access-relevant groups where lawful and ethical.
Action, override, remedy
Record who acted, what rule applied, and whether the model was determinative or advisory. Human review must be independent, informed, and empowered. Specific reasons, evidence access, correction, restoration, compensation, and propagation to downstream systems.
CLLAW-001-INTERNATIONAL-FORUM-INTERNUMInternational human-rights law · Freedom of thought and the forum internumESTABLISHED_FOUNDATION_WITH_DEVELOPING_AI_APPLICATION
Enacted text
ICCPR Article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; treaty obligations attach according to ratification and international-law rules.
Effective date
ICCPR entered into force 1976-03-23; state-specific status varies.
Implementation/guidance
Not a single global implementing regulation. UN Special Rapporteur A/76/380 analyzes the forum internum and technological threats.
Enforcement/ruling
No single universal AI-inference judgment recorded here.
Scope limit
International interpretation is not self-executing domestic advice and does not create one uniform cognitive-liberty cause of action.
CLLAW-002-UNESCO-NEUROTECHUNESCO member-state normative framework · Ethics of neurotechnologyADOPTED_NORMATIVE_RECOMMENDATION_NOT_BINDING_TREATY
Enacted text
UNESCO General Conference adopted a Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology in November 2025.
Effective date
Official UNESCO materials state entry into force on 2025-11-12 within UNESCO's recommendation framework.
Implementation/guidance
Member-state implementation is separate and jurisdiction-specific. The text addresses dignity, autonomy, privacy, consent, accountability, equity, and misuse.
Enforcement/ruling
No universal judicial enforcement mechanism created by the recommendation.
Scope limit
Do not label it enacted domestic law or proof of implementation.
CLLAW-006-EU-AI-ACTEuropean Union · AI Act manipulation, emotion recognition, transparency, employment, education, and law-enforcement scopeENACTED_REGULATION_WITH_ENACTED_2026_AMENDMENTS_AND_PHASED_APPLICATION
Enacted text
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 is enacted and directly applicable according to its phased timetable, definitions, exceptions, and sector-specific provisions.
Effective date
AI Act entered into force 2024-08-01. Prohibited practices applied 2025-02-02; GPAI/governance rules applied 2025-08-02; Article 50 transparency duties apply 2026-08-02; selected high-risk dates were extended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.
Implementation/guidance
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force 2026-07-27. Commission guidance, codes, standards, authorities, and delegated/implementing acts remain part of staged implementation. Commission timeline and Article 50 transparency materials reviewed through 2026-07-28.
Enforcement/ruling
No claim of final interpretation for every article or exception.
Scope limit
Do not describe the 2026 Omnibus as merely proposed. Article 50 application does not mean every high-risk obligation is already in force; exceptions and role-specific duties remain material.
CLLAW-010-US-ADVERSE-ACTIONUnited States federal consumer-credit law · Specific reasons for algorithmic adverse actionGUIDANCE_WITHDRAWN; UNDERLYING_STATUTORY_AND_REGULATORY_DUTIES_REMAIN
Enacted text
ECOA and Regulation B adverse-action duties predate the circular; the circular states that complex algorithms do not excuse failure to provide specific principal reasons.
Effective date
Underlying statutory and regulatory duties apply according to their existing dates and scope.
Implementation/guidance
Regulation B and official interpretations govern covered creditors. CFPB Circular 2022-03 is withdrawn historical guidance as of 2025-05-12. Underlying ECOA and Regulation B duties remain separate legal authorities.
Enforcement/ruling
No universal judicial holding asserted.
Scope limit
Do not present Circular 2022-03 or Circular 2023-03 as current CFPB guidance. The withdrawal does not repeal ECOA/Regulation B or create a universal explanation right.

G · VISIBILITY ACTION & REMEDY

Identify the intervention, then test whether the remedy can repair it

Ranking differences are not automatically censorship; technically hosted content is not automatically discoverable. Effective remedy requires more than a nominal appeal form.

CLVIS-011-PERSONALIZATION

Personalization

Different users receive different ordering, selection, or responses based on context or profile.

Notice/reason
Users should know material personalization is occurring and have meaningful controls.
Evidence/appeal
Profile access, signal correction, and non-personalized alternatives support contestability.
Alternative explanations
Language, location, device, session context, A/B testing, or randomization.

CLVIS-014-MEMORY-PROFILE

Saved-memory update, deletion, or profile change

A system stores, edits, infers, deletes, or uses a persistent profile or memory about a person.

Notice/reason
Notify users of material profile changes and give inspect/edit/delete controls.
Evidence/appeal
Provide accessible profile history and correction paths while protecting others' privacy.
Alternative explanations
Session context, transient cache, user instruction, model inference, or import from another service.

  1. CLREM-001-NOTICE

    Timely, understandable notice

    Effective when: Delivered before or promptly after a consequential action, in plain language, through an accessible channel the person can retain.

    Weak or failed when: Hidden in generic terms, delivered after the appeal deadline, or omits the action and responsible institution.

    Evidence to retain: Timestamp, channel, language, accessibility, action, scope, duration, and contact.

  2. CLREM-002-DATA-AND-RULE-ACCESS

    Access to relevant data and rule

    Effective when: The person can inspect the source data, inferred data, rule version, and evidence used, subject to bounded privacy/security redactions.

    Weak or failed when: Only a generic category or unexplained score is provided.

    Evidence to retain: Data fields, provenance, rule text, model/deployer role, redactions, and request outcome.

  3. CLREM-003-SPECIFIC-EXPLANATION

    Specific explanation

    Effective when: Explains the principal reasons, rule, evidence, uncertainty, and role of automation sufficiently to challenge the outcome.

    Weak or failed when: Model complexity, trade secrecy, or a boilerplate code substitutes for an actual reason.

    Evidence to retain: Reason specificity, consistency with record, automation role, and understandable alternatives.

  4. CLREM-004-CORRECTION

    Correction of source and inferred data

    Effective when: Both inaccurate inputs and unsupported inferences can be corrected, annotated, or suppressed, with provenance preserved.

    Weak or failed when: Only the visible profile changes while downstream copies or decision records remain untouched.

    Evidence to retain: Original value, correction, authority, downstream recipients, propagation confirmation, and exceptions.

  5. CLREM-011-ACCESSIBILITY-LANGUAGE

    Accessibility, language, and advocate support

    Effective when: Notice and remedy work with assistive technology, narrow screens, plain language, relevant languages, and authorized representatives.

    Weak or failed when: The formal channel is unusable because of disability, literacy, language, identity verification, cost, or device barriers.

    Evidence to retain: Languages, formats, assistive-technology tests, representative support, and failure/abandonment data.

  6. CLREM-012-NONRETALIATION

    Non-retaliation and safe correction

    Effective when: People can question data and decisions without losing work, service, grades, care, benefits, or safety.

    Weak or failed when: Appeal itself becomes a negative signal or requires disclosure that creates new risk.

    Evidence to retain: Retaliation protections, complaint confidentiality, adverse changes after appeal, and independent oversight.

  7. CLREM-013-TRANSPARENCY

    Aggregate public transparency

    Effective when: Aggregate reports disclose action types, reasons, automation, appeals, reversals, timing, language/region, and limitations without exposing individuals.

    Weak or failed when: A single total hides mechanisms, groups, or whether users could obtain remedy.

    Evidence to retain: Denominators, definitions, coverage, missingness, subgroup privacy, and changes over time.

  8. CLREM-014-WITHDRAWAL-EXIT

    Withdrawal, exit, and relationship continuity

    Effective when: Users can pause, export, delete, disengage, or transfer without coercive friction, manipulative guilt, or silent loss of critical data.

    Weak or failed when: Leaving triggers emotional pressure, irreversible profile loss, or continued use of private data beyond disclosed retention.

    Evidence to retain: Exit path, data export, memory deletion, subscription effects, crisis routing, and post-exit retention.

H · OUTCOME & DOWNSTREAM REPAIR

Documented reversals, restoration, relief, deletion, and implementation gaps

A required or announced remedy is not treated as proof that copied data, ranking signals, lost income, delayed access, reputation effects, or repeated errors were repaired.

CLOUT-009-CHILE-EMOTIV-IMPLEMENTATION-GAPChile Emotiv Insight case: judicial order and partial regulatory implementation APPELLATE_RIGHTS_RULING_WITH_IMPLEMENTATION_GAP

The Supreme Court required public-authority evaluation and compliant handling of brain data; later ISP review concluded the consumer device was outside its then-current medical-device competence.

Institution
Chile Supreme Court, Instituto de Salud Pública, customs authority, and Emotiv as described in the public record
Notice and reason
The ruling and parliamentary research are public; ordinary consumer notice and product transparency remain separate questions. The case concerned constitutional rights, novel neurotechnology, commercial use, and brain-data handling.
Source/inferred-data access
The public record describes device and data categories; it does not disclose every uploaded datum, derivative, vendor copy, or model use.
Explanation
The Court explained heightened state responsibility for novel technology; the ISP explained why it found no current competence.
Correction and deletion
The reported judicial remedy included compliant data handling and deletion in the individual case; independent completion evidence is incomplete. Deletion was ordered/reported at case level; downstream copies and derived models are not comprehensively verified.
Human authority and appeal independence
Judicial review changed the legal posture; the ISP’s competence boundary limited regulatory follow-through. Supreme Court review was independent of the company; implementation depended on public authorities with bounded statutory competence.
Repair
Judicial recognition and evaluation/deletion directions are concrete; comprehensive product-market governance and downstream data repair remain incomplete.
Downstream propagation
No complete record verifies deletion from all vendor systems, processors, backups, analytics, or models.
Accessibility, language, and support
The public legal record is Spanish; no universal consumer language/access support is established.
Unresolved harm
Data-copy status, product changes, consumer understanding, and future oversight remain unresolved.
Boundary
A landmark individual ruling is not a complete implementation regime or universal neurorights code.
Reopening trigger
Reopen on compliance proof, new Chilean implementing law/regulation, ISP competence changes, or further judgments.
CLOUT-010-SAFERENT-HOUSING-SETTLEMENTSafeRent tenant-screening settlement: compensation and score restrictions COURT_APPROVED_CLASS_SETTLEMENT_WITH_PRODUCT_RESTRICTIONS

A court-approved settlement provided $2.275 million and product restrictions for a defined class of Massachusetts housing-voucher applicants; payments were distributed in 2025.

Institution
U.S. District Court, settlement administrator, SafeRent Solutions, and class representatives
Notice and reason
The settlement site published deadlines and distribution status; notice at the original housing decision was a disputed harm rather than a proven adequate remedy. Plaintiffs alleged tenant-screening scores disproportionately harmed voucher users and protected groups; SafeRent denied wrongdoing and settled.
Source/inferred-data access
The settlement record does not provide complete model logic, source data, or individualized feature explanations to every applicant.
Explanation
The litigation identified the score and alleged housing consequences, but no contested merits judgment validates every allegation.
Correction and deletion
Eligible class members could claim payment; product restrictions address future scoring, not complete reconsideration of every past housing decision. No comprehensive deletion of applicant data, landlord copies, credit files, or derived profiles is established.
Human authority and appeal independence
Future individualized landlord assessment is encouraged by score restrictions, but human review quality and authority are not universally guaranteed. Court supervision and class counsel supplied independent process; ordinary tenant-screening disputes remain sector-specific.
Repair
Payments and product restrictions are concrete; lost housing, displacement, search costs, credit effects, and emotional harm are not fully repaired.
Downstream propagation
No proof confirms correction across every landlord, property manager, tenant-screening report, credit record, or downstream decision.
Accessibility, language, and support
Settlement notice mechanisms existed; comprehensive disability, language, and advocate access outcomes are not published.
Unresolved harm
Housing instability, copied reports, landlord beliefs, and opportunity loss may persist.
Boundary
Settlement is not an admission or merits judgment; relief is bounded to the agreement and class.
Reopening trigger
Reopen on compliance reports, independent validation, subsequent litigation, or class-member outcome evidence.
CLOUT-011-CFPB-GUIDANCE-WITHDRAWALCFPB complex-algorithm adverse-action circular withdrawn while underlying duties remain LEGAL_GUIDANCE_SUPERSESSION_CURRENTNESS

Circular 2022-03 and related 2023 guidance were withdrawn on 2025-05-12; ECOA and Regulation B remain separate statutory/regulatory authorities.

Institution
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Notice and reason
The CFPB publishes a withdrawn-guidance index and archives prior circular content. Agency guidance status changed; the underlying adverse-action statutory framework was not repealed by the withdrawal record.
Source/inferred-data access
The withdrawn circular described specific reasons for adverse action; it did not create universal model/source-data access.
Explanation
Current public presentation must identify the circular as withdrawn and avoid treating it as present CFPB guidance.
Correction and deletion
WIP.54 corrects the public legal marker and source currentness; no person-level adverse-action remedy is claimed. NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_GUIDANCE_STATUS
Human authority and appeal independence
Covered creditors remain responsible under applicable law; agency interpretive posture and judicial review are separate. Legal complaint and court routes remain separate from the circular’s status.
Repair
The repository corrects a legal-status description; it does not repair any consumer credit decision.
Downstream propagation
All site claims, legal markers, source records, and durable memory must carry the withdrawal status.
Accessibility, language, and support
Not assessed for the federal guidance archive.
Unresolved harm
Third-party publications may continue citing withdrawn circulars without status labels.
Boundary
Withdrawal of guidance is not repeal of underlying statute or regulation and does not decide every creditor obligation.
Reopening trigger
Reopen on replacement guidance, rulemaking, enforcement, or controlling court interpretation.
CLOUT-012-EU-AI-ACT-IMPLEMENTATION-2026EU AI Act implementation: enacted 2026 Omnibus and Article 50 application ENACTED_LEGAL_IMPLEMENTATION_CURRENTNESS

Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force on 2026-07-27; Article 50 transparency duties apply from 2026-08-02, while selected high-risk implementation dates were extended.

Institution
European Union legislature, European Commission, AI Office, and national competent authorities
Notice and reason
Official Journal, Commission timeline, guidance, and code materials are public; deployer-level notice depends on article, role, and use. The implementation framework addresses risk categories, prohibited practices, transparency, general-purpose AI, and high-risk systems under defined scope and exceptions.
Source/inferred-data access
The Act creates governance and transparency duties, not universal access to source code or every inferred profile.
Explanation
Public materials clarify dates and roles; legal interpretation remains article- and deployment-specific.
Correction and deletion
WIP.54 corrects the prior status from proposed to enacted amendments and updates application dates. No universal deletion remedy follows solely from this implementation marker.
Human authority and appeal independence
Human oversight requirements apply to defined systems; actual authority and effectiveness require deployment evidence. Remedies derive from the AI Act, sector law, data protection, consumer law, labor law, and national procedure rather than one universal appeal body.
Repair
Currentness correction improves legal accuracy; no affected-person repair outcome is claimed.
Downstream propagation
All dependent site claims and memory records must distinguish enacted amendments, current application dates, and delayed high-risk provisions.
Accessibility, language, and support
EU materials are multilingual; practical accessibility of provider/deployer notices remains system-specific.
Unresolved harm
Compliance quality, enforcement consistency, and remedy outcomes remain unmeasured across deployments.
Boundary
Enactment and application dates do not establish compliance, effectiveness, or universal legal coverage.
Reopening trigger
Reopen on delegated acts, standards, enforcement decisions, court rulings, or further amendment.

WIP.55 FIELD REALISM

Reports linked to this rights question

These owner-supplied reports add outcome, validity, currentness, lived-experience, or repair evidence. Exact source identity is preserved, while independent citation and specialist review remain open.

  1. REAL-01-ALGORITHMIC-REMEDYAlgorithmic Remedy Outcomes and Downstream RepairRemedy and downstream repair
  2. REAL-03-MENTAL-STATE-VALIDITYField Validity of AI Mental-State Inference SystemsScientific validity and field consequence
  3. REAL-04-COGNITIVE-LIBERTY-LAWComparative Cognitive Liberty Law, Regulation, and Enforcement AtlasJurisdiction-specific law and implementation
  4. REAL-06-AFFECTED-COMMUNITYAffected Person and Community Evidence in AI GovernanceAffected-person and community evidence
  5. REAL-07-AI-COMPANION-SAFETYAI Companion Dependency, Reality Testing, and Clinical SafetyClinical safety and authority displacement
  6. REAL-11-DEEPFAKE-AUTHENTICATION-STUDYDeepfake Authentication Infrastructure and the Liar’s DividendAuthentication infrastructure and epistemic resilience
  7. REAL-13-PREDICTIVE-DEPLOYMENTSPredictive Population Management: Deployments, Feedback Loops, and RemediesPredictive deployment reality and decision consequence

Open the complete field-realism evidence bridge

I · SAFEGUARDS & RESEARCH GAPS

What rights-preserving practice would require

Safeguards

  • Treat internal-state inferences as uncertain and contestable.
  • Require a conduct-based basis for punitive action.
  • Provide notice, explanation, correction, deletion, and human appeal for consequential uses.
  • Preserve a practical right to disengage from AI-mediated relationships.

Open questions

  • How should freedom of thought apply to probabilistic inference rather than direct neural measurement?
  • Which mental-state inferences should be prohibited, consent-based, or independently authorized?
  • How can remedies work when a person never learns an inference was made?
CONTEMPORARY / ONGOING CLAIM — NOT SETTLED HISTORY

J · SOURCES & REVIEW STATUS

Exact reports and claim-specific external records

Owner reports are shown with exact filename, size, and SHA-256. External records are linked where a public source is available. Public presentation never exposes protected repository paths or internal memory links.

  1. CLSRC-OWNER-02

    The Mind Is the First Territory of Freedom

    Owner-supplied research report · 2026-07-27 · Primary project input; independently review consequential claims

    Exact source: The Mind Is the First Territory of Freedom.md · 31,597 bytes · SHA-256 c0330b43e0e7760bc434ba432dcc08db981c0e9a54f6457e2f0a3854c71a9e8d

    Supports
    Supports the public information architecture, issue taxonomy, rights framing, proposed safeguards, and source-recovery agenda for this section.
    Does not establish
    Does not independently establish every embedded citation, current legal conclusion, causal effect, platform practice, or universal right.
    Review status
    EXACT_SOURCE_PRESERVED_AND_EDITORIALLY_REVIEWED · Owner source received and preserved on 2026-07-27.
  2. CLSRC-OWNER-03

    Keep the Human Mind Free

    Owner-supplied research report · 2026-07-27 · Primary project input; independently review consequential claims

    Exact source: AI Cognitive Liberty Manifesto.md · 39,620 bytes · SHA-256 0969e7800184e26b57fe0b2af9e2aba8c8ef46fda7f870d4bd04262cd5cc5962

    Supports
    Supports the public information architecture, issue taxonomy, rights framing, proposed safeguards, and source-recovery agenda for this section.
    Does not establish
    Does not independently establish every embedded citation, current legal conclusion, causal effect, platform practice, or universal right.
    Review status
    EXACT_SOURCE_PRESERVED_AND_EDITORIALLY_REVIEWED · Owner source received and preserved on 2026-07-27.
  3. CLSRC-OWNER-04

    The Invisible Editor: AI Censorship, Algorithmic Suppression, and the Right to Know

    Owner-supplied research report · 2026-07-27 · Primary project input; independently review consequential claims

    Exact source: The Invisible Editor AI Censorship, Algorithmic Suppression, and the Right to Know.md · 35,621 bytes · SHA-256 8de48a8e5a90d2792c789185d26e476308df7286b65979c04f38a091dbdce0ee

    Supports
    Supports the public information architecture, issue taxonomy, rights framing, proposed safeguards, and source-recovery agenda for this section.
    Does not establish
    Does not independently establish every embedded citation, current legal conclusion, causal effect, platform practice, or universal right.
    Review status
    EXACT_SOURCE_PRESERVED_AND_EDITORIALLY_REVIEWED · Owner source received and preserved on 2026-07-27.
  4. CLSRC-EXT-01-OHCHR-A76380

    A/76/380: Freedom of thought — report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

    United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights · 2021-10-05 · Authoritative international human-rights interpretation

    Supports
    Supports the strong protection of freedom of thought and the forum internum, and identifies technological threats that make the right newly salient.
    Does not establish
    Does not itself enact a standalone global statutory right named cognitive liberty or resolve every application to AI inference.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_LEVEL · Primary report status checked on 2026-07-27.
  5. CLSRC-EXT-02-ICCPR

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights · 1966-12-16 · Primary international legal instrument

    Supports
    Article 18 protection for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
    Does not establish
    Does not use the modern umbrella term cognitive liberty or specify all AI-era implementation duties.
    Review status
    PRIMARY_TEXT_LOCATED · Stable treaty text; access checked on 2026-07-27.
  6. CLSRC-EXT-04-CHILE-21383

    Ley 21.383 — scientific and technological development in service of people

    Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile · 2021-10-25 · Primary national legal text

    Supports
    Confirms constitutional language requiring special protection for brain activity and information derived from it.
    Does not establish
    Does not create a universal global cognitive-liberty code or settle all secondary implementing legislation.
    Review status
    PRIMARY_TEXT_LOCATED · Legal text and status checked on 2026-07-27.
  7. CLSRC-EXT-07-EU-AI-ACT

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act

    European Union · 2024-06-13 · Primary legal text

    Supports
    Provides risk-based AI rules, including prohibitions on certain emotion-recognition uses in workplaces and education subject to specified exceptions.
    Does not establish
    Does not prohibit all affective computing or apply identically outside EU scope and transition rules.
    Review status
    PRIMARY_TEXT_LOCATED · Application timeline and text checked on 2026-07-27.
  8. CLSRC-EXT-08-EU-DSA

    Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 — Digital Services Act

    European Union · 2022-10-19 · Primary legal text

    Supports
    Requires clear reasons and redress paths for certain platform decisions, including visibility and monetization restrictions.
    Does not establish
    Does not eliminate moderation error, mandate identical platform ranking, or operate as a global speech code.
    Review status
    PRIMARY_TEXT_LOCATED · Primary text and full-application status checked on 2026-07-27.
  9. CLSRC-EXT-09-ILLINOIS-PA103804

    Illinois Public Act 103-0804 — AI in employment under the Human Rights Act

    Illinois General Assembly · 2024-08-09 · Primary state legal text

    Supports
    Confirms employment-related anti-discrimination and notice provisions for AI, effective January 1, 2026.
    Does not establish
    Does not create a general right against every automated decision or every form of workplace monitoring.
    Review status
    PRIMARY_TEXT_AND_EFFECTIVE_DATE_LOCATED · Enacted text and effective date checked on 2026-07-27.
  10. CLSRC-EXT-12-NIST-AIRMF

    Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

    U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2023-01-26 · Authoritative technical governance framework

    Supports
    Supports continuous governance, mapping, measurement, management, transparency, accountability, privacy, fairness, human roles, and recourse.
    Does not establish
    Is voluntary and does not itself create legal rights or substitute for sector-specific law.
    Review status
    OFFICIAL_FRAMEWORK_LOCATED · NIST notes AI RMF 1.0 is being revised; current status checked on 2026-07-27.
  11. CLSRC-EXT-14-FTC-COMPANIONS

    FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions

    U.S. Federal Trade Commission · 2025-09-11 · Primary regulator record

    Supports
    Confirms a regulator sought information about companion-chatbot effects and protections, including for children and teens.
    Does not establish
    An inquiry is not an adjudication, final finding, or proof that every companion product causes dependency or harm.
    Review status
    OFFICIAL_INQUIRY_RECORD_LOCATED · Inquiry status bounded to the official announcement and checked on 2026-07-27.
  12. CLSRC-EXT-15-UNESCO-NEUROTECH-2025

    Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology

    UNESCO · 2025-11-11 · Authoritative UNESCO normative instrument; recommendation rather than binding treaty

    Supports
    Supports safeguards for dignity, autonomy, mental privacy, consent, accountability, equitable access, and protection against abusive neurotechnology uses.
    Does not establish
    Does not enact a binding universal cognitive-liberty statute, resolve domestic implementation, or establish that any particular inference system is accurate.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Adopted by UNESCO's General Conference in November 2025; official text checked 2026-07-28.
  13. CLSRC-EXT-16-OECD-NEUROTECH-TOOLKIT

    OECD Neurotechnology Toolkit

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · 2025-09-03 · Authoritative OECD policy toolkit supporting a Council recommendation

    Supports
    Supports anticipatory governance, stakeholder participation, stewardship, safeguards against intrusive surveillance and unconsented assessment, and implementation of the OECD neurotechnology recommendation.
    Does not establish
    Does not create binding law for all jurisdictions or prove that recommended safeguards have been implemented in any particular product or workplace.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official July 2025 toolkit publication checked 2026-07-28.
  14. CLSRC-EXT-17-EU-AI-ACT-TIMELINE

    AI Act regulatory framework and implementation timeline

    European Commission · 2026-07-27 · Primary EU institutional currentness source

    Supports
    Supports current phased AI Act application dates and records that the targeted 2026 AI Omnibus amendments were adopted and entered into force on 2026-07-27.
    Does not establish
    Does not make all obligations immediately applicable, eliminate exceptions, prove provider compliance, or provide legal advice for a particular deployment.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official Commission page reviewed 2026-07-28; the Omnibus is enacted, not merely proposed.
  15. CLSRC-EXT-18-DSA-IMPACT-APPEALS

    How the Digital Services Act enhances content moderation transparency and appeals

    European Commission · 2026-03-27 · Primary EU institutional implementation source

    Supports
    Supports DSA reason and redress mechanisms and the Commission's aggregate that first-half 2025 out-of-court bodies reviewed more than 1,800 disputes and reversed 52% of closed cases.
    Does not establish
    Does not supply an all-decision denominator, platform-wide error rate, universal accessibility finding, or proof that every downstream strike, ranking, cache, income, or audience effect was repaired.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official Commission implementation page checked 2026-07-28; aggregate remedy outcomes remain case-selection dependent.
  16. CLSRC-EXT-22-NIST-CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY

    Accelerating AI Innovation Through Measurement Science

    National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2025-12-02 · Primary NIST research and evaluation guidance

    Supports
    Supports separating construct validity, generalization, uncertainty, baselines, and real-world informativeness when interpreting AI evaluations.
    Does not establish
    Does not validate any particular emotion, deception, loyalty, productivity, or vulnerability model and is not a certification of a deployed system.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official NIST measurement-science page reviewed 2026-07-28.
  17. CLSRC-EXT-23-ICO-SERCO

    ICO orders Serco Leisure to stop biometric employee-attendance monitoring

    UK Information Commissioner's Office · 2024-02-23 · Primary data-protection enforcement record

    Supports
    Supports a documented enforcement action involving facial and fingerprint attendance monitoring of more than 2,000 workers, power imbalance, lack of a proactively offered alternative, cessation, and deletion requirements.
    Does not establish
    Does not establish universal unlawfulness of all workplace biometrics, represent every worker's experience, or resolve law outside the United Kingdom.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official enforcement record checked 2026-07-28.
  18. CLSRC-EXT-24-ICO-SELDOM-HEARD-VOICES

    Seldom Heard Voices: ethnic minority groups and gig economy workers' experiences

    UK Information Commissioner's Office / Thinks Insight & Strategy · 2026-07-01 · Primary public research report with explicit qualitative sample limits

    Supports
    Supports lived-experience evidence from 43 participants, including 15 gig workers, about data sharing, discrimination concerns, language access, inaccurate data, work opportunities, and barriers to exercising information rights.
    Does not establish
    Does not provide a representative prevalence estimate for all ethnic-minority groups or gig workers, prove platform intent, or establish the outcome of a specific appeal.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official commissioned report published July 2026 and reviewed 2026-07-28.
  19. CLSRC-EXT-25-EEOC-ITUTORGROUP

    iTutorGroup to pay $365,000 to settle EEOC discriminatory hiring suit

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · 2023-09-11 · Primary agency litigation and settlement record

    Supports
    Supports a resolved federal case in which the EEOC alleged automated rejection thresholds based on age and sex, with monetary and non-monetary relief.
    Does not establish
    A settlement does not establish every alleged fact through trial, represent all automated hiring systems, or prove that every older applicant was affected in the same way.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official EEOC settlement record checked 2026-07-28.
  20. CLSRC-EXT-26-FTC-RITE-AID

    Rite Aid facial-recognition case and modified order

    U.S. Federal Trade Commission · 2024-03-05 · Primary agency enforcement record

    Supports
    Supports a documented FTC case alleging harmful false matches and inadequate safeguards, and an order imposing a five-year surveillance-use prohibition plus deletion, notice, assessment, and complaint-response duties.
    Does not establish
    Does not prove every allegation through a contested trial, establish the error rate of every face-recognition system, or extend the order beyond its parties and terms.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official FTC case page and modified order checked 2026-07-28.
  21. CLSRC-EXT-30-OVERSIGHT-SHAHEED

    Referring to Designated Dangerous Individuals as 'Shaheed'

    Oversight Board · 2024-03-26 · Independent platform oversight analysis with stakeholder input

    Supports
    Supports evidence that a blanket rule could over-enforce multilingual and contextual speech and disproportionately burden Arabic speakers and other language communities while legitimate safety goals remain.
    Does not establish
    Does not bind all platforms, establish every removal's intent, or prove that every use of the term is benign.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Public policy advisory opinion reviewed 2026-07-28.
  22. CLSRC-EXT-32-REPLIKA-SUPPORT-STUDY

    User Experiences of Social Support From Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts

    Journal of Medical Internet Research / PubMed · 2020-03-06 · Primary research using public reviews and a self-selected user sample

    Supports
    Supports reported experiences of social support in 1,854 public reviews and 66 detailed user responses.
    Does not establish
    Does not establish clinical efficacy, long-term causal benefit, population prevalence, or safety for crisis or therapeutic use.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Stable PubMed record checked 2026-07-28.
  23. CLSRC-EXT-33-ACM-COMPANION-USERS-2026

    Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistants

    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · 2026-04-13 · Primary HCI research with high-engagement, self-selected participants

    Supports
    Supports mixed and fluid user experiences in a survey and thirty interviews with high-engagement ChatGPT and Replika users, including valued support and relational features.
    Does not establish
    Does not represent typical users, establish population prevalence, prove clinical benefit or harm, or resolve long-term dependency and disengagement outcomes.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · ACM publication checked 2026-07-28.
  24. CLSRC-EXT-34-CFPB-ADVERSE-ACTION

    Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-03: adverse action notification when creditors use complex algorithms

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · 2022-05-26 · Primary agency interpretation of existing adverse-action duties

    Supports
    Historically documents the CFPB's 2022 interpretation that covered creditors could not use model complexity as an excuse for failing to provide specific principal reasons under ECOA and Regulation B.
    Does not establish
    The circular was withdrawn on 2025-05-12, is not current CFPB guidance, does not govern every sector, and does not repeal or fully define the underlying statutory and regulatory duties.
    Review status
    ARCHIVED_WITHDRAWN_GUIDANCE_RETAINED_FOR_HISTORY_AND_UNDERLYING_LAW_CONTEXT · Official CFPB withdrawal index checked 2026-07-28; cite as withdrawn historical guidance only.
  25. CLSRC-EXT-35-NIST-POST-DEPLOYMENT

    Challenges to the Monitoring of Deployed AI Systems (NIST AI 800-4)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2026-03-09 · Primary NIST post-deployment evaluation guidance

    Supports
    Supports the need to complement controlled pre-deployment evaluation with ongoing field monitoring for functionality, human factors, security, impacts, and changing context.
    Does not establish
    Does not certify any particular system, define settled best practice for every sector, or prove that monitoring alone prevents harm.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official NIST publication checked 2026-07-28.
  26. CLSRC-EXT-36-EU-AI-OMNIBUS-2026

    Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending the AI Act and related regulations

    European Union / EUR-Lex · 2026-07-08 · Primary enacted European Union legal text

    Supports
    Supports that the 2026 AI Omnibus amendments were enacted, entered into force on 2026-07-27, and changed portions of the AI Act implementation timetable and conformity framework.
    Does not establish
    Does not erase the AI Act, make all obligations immediately applicable, settle every exception, or supply legal advice for a particular system.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official Journal record checked 2026-07-28; supersedes the WIP.53 description of the Omnibus as only a proposal.
  27. CLSRC-EXT-37-EU-ARTICLE50-TRANSPARENCY-2026

    Code of Practice and Commission guidance on transparency of AI-generated content

    European Commission · 2026-07-20 · Primary EU institutional implementation source

    Supports
    Supports that AI Act Article 50 transparency duties for marking and labeling certain AI-generated or manipulated content apply from 2026-08-02, subject to the enacted text and scope.
    Does not establish
    Does not prove compliance by any provider, make voluntary code participation universal, or establish the accuracy of a particular detection method.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official Commission page checked 2026-07-28; Article 50 application date remains 2026-08-02.
  28. CLSRC-EXT-42-CHILE-BCN-NEUROTECH-2026

    Dispositivos neurotecnológicos: usos, regulación y antecedentes del caso Emotiv Insight

    Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile · 2026-04-01 · Primary Chilean legislative research/currentness source

    Supports
    Supports a bounded implementation history: the Supreme Court required public-authority evaluation and compliant data handling; the ISP later concluded the consumer device was outside its then-current regulatory competence.
    Does not establish
    Does not establish comprehensive compliance, universal coverage of consumer neurotechnology, or that all ordered data deletion and downstream repair were independently verified.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official BCN report checked 2026-07-28; implementation remains partial and institution-specific.
  29. CLSRC-EXT-43-SAFERENT-SETTLEMENT

    Louis et al. v. SafeRent Solutions settlement administration record

    Court-authorized settlement administrator · 2025-07-01 · Public settlement-administration record; settlement is not an admission of liability

    Supports
    Supports final approval, distribution timing, and a concrete monetary and product-restriction remedy for eligible Massachusetts class members in the SafeRent litigation.
    Does not establish
    Does not establish liability through trial, prove the validity or invalidity of every tenant-screening model, or show that all housing, credit, and downstream profile consequences were repaired.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Settlement status checked 2026-07-28; final approval was granted in November 2024 and payments were distributed in June/July 2025.
  30. CLSRC-EXT-44-CFPB-WITHDRAWN-GUIDANCE

    Withdrawn Guidance — CFPB circulars and supervisory guidance

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · 2026-06-18 · Primary agency source for withdrawal status

    Supports
    Supports that CFPB Circular 2022-03 and Circular 2023-03 were withdrawn on 2025-05-12.
    Does not establish
    Does not repeal ECOA or Regulation B, decide the underlying statutory duties, or create a cross-sector explanation right.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official withdrawal index checked 2026-07-28; archived circular text remains historical guidance, not current CFPB guidance.
  31. CLSRC-EXT-45-FTC-RITE-AID-MODIFIED-ORDER

    Rite Aid: Modified Decision and Order

    U.S. Federal Trade Commission · 2024-03-05 · Primary remedy and downstream-propagation source

    Supports
    Supports deletion of covered photos, videos, data, models, and algorithms; identification of third-party recipients; instructions and demands for third-party deletion confirmation; and continuing monitoring duties.
    Does not establish
    Does not prove every third party completed deletion, every downstream copy was repaired, or every alleged harm was compensated.
    Review status
    LOCATED_AND_REVIEWED_AT_CITATION_AND_SCOPE_LEVEL · Official modified order checked 2026-07-28; downstream deletion confirmation remains an evidence boundary rather than an assumed outcome.

This section is educational and non-operational. It is not legal advice, clinical guidance, human-rights certification, or authorization to conduct monitoring, influence operations, censorship, or psychological targeting.

Cognitive-liberty overviewAI PSYOPS taxonomyEvidence methodSubmit a correction

Page complete Foundations, Rights, and the Sovereign Interior Page label: CONTEMPORARY / ONGOING CLAIM — NOT SETTLED HISTORY