Claim Ledger

Nothing published without a source

← Source Registry
Demo ledgerExample claims drafted only from the verified scope of registered sources.

Content lifecycle

  1. Draft→
  2. Source review→
  3. Fact-checked→
  4. Publication-ready→
  5. Published→
  6. Needs recheck

Publication-ready requires: a linked verified source for every claim, complete source metadata, wording within verified scope, caveats preserved, and an explicit law/guidance distinction. Any failed check holds the claim at Source review.

  • Legal claim: must link primary Law/Regulation; guidance may explain but never stands alone as legal authority.
  • Guidance claim: labelled as guidance and linked to Official Guidance.
  • Framework claim: never phrased as a legal obligation.
  • Survey / research claim: sample, population and material caveats stay visible.
  • Law + guidance claim: links both and states which part comes from which source.

CL-001Survey / research claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"An OECD survey of a non-representative sample of more than 2,000 SMEs in 12 OECD countries reports rapid AI adoption, but uneven strategic and secure integration."

Caveat
Non-representative sample; not generalisable to all OECD SMEs.

Review note: Sample size, country count and non-representative status kept in the wording.

CL-002Guidance claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"The European Commission's guidance states that Article 4 of the AI Act requires providers and deployers to take measures to support the AI literacy of staff using AI on their behalf, without prescribing a specific level for every individual."

Linked source
Caveat
Commission guidance describing the law. For the legal wording see CL-006 (AI Act, Article 4).

Review note: Attributed to Commission guidance, not presented as the legal text.

CL-003Guidance claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"ENISA's SME Cyber Resilience Maturity Assessment Model offers a structured way to evaluate and strengthen cyber resilience with CRA requirements in mind; ENISA says it is primarily intended for organisations that make or place products with digital elements on the market."

Caveat
Primarily for product manufacturers; not a universal SME compliance framework.

Review note: Intended-audience limitation kept in the claim itself.

CL-004Framework claimFact-checkedNot yet publication-ready

"The NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 is a voluntary framework to help organisations manage AI risks; NIST states it is currently being revised."

Caveat
Voluntary framework under revision; not certification.

Review note: Revision status preserved. Held at Fact-checked pending the revised version.

CL-005Survey / research claimSource reviewNot publication-ready

"Most SMEs across the OECD now use AI securely."

Caveat
Rejected example: generalises a non-representative sample and contradicts the reported uneven secure integration.
  • Wording goes beyond the source's verified scope.
  • Source caveat or sample limitation is missing.

Review note: Blocked by fact-check. Shown to demonstrate the gate.

CL-006Legal claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"Article 4 of the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) requires providers and deployers of AI systems to take measures to support the AI literacy of their staff and other persons operating or using AI systems on their behalf, taking into account their knowledge, experience, education, training and context. It does not require guaranteeing a specific level of AI literacy for any individual."

Caveat
Paraphrase of Article 4 only; no specific literacy level is required for any individual.

Provenance — which part comes from which source

  • LAWLaw/RegulationEntire statement — Article 4, consolidated text.

Review note: Backed by primary law (consolidated EUR-Lex text). Not a compliance assessment of any organisation.

CL-007Law + guidance claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"Article 50 of the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) sets transparency obligations for providers and deployers. According to European Commission guidance and FAQ, these obligations apply from 2 August 2026; the FAQ describes a limited grace period until 2 December 2026 only for the Article 50(2) marking/detection obligations of systems placed before 2 August 2026."

Caveat
Dates and grace period are attributed to Commission guidance. The grace period covers Article 50(2) marking/detection only.

Provenance — which part comes from which source

  • LAWLaw/RegulationIdentifies the legal provision: Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
  • GUIDEOfficial GuidanceGuidance: the Article 50 obligations apply from 2 August 2026.
  • GUIDEOfficial GuidanceGuidance: the limited Article 50(2) grace period until 2 December 2026 for pre-2 August 2026 systems.

Review note: Law and guidance parts separated in the wording; grace period kept within its narrow scope.

CL-008Survey / research claimPublication-readyEligible for publication

"SMEs in the 2026 OECD D4SME Survey — a non-representative sample of more than 2,000 SMEs in 12 OECD countries — report constraints including time, maintenance costs and skills gaps."

Caveat
Non-representative sample; not generalisable to all OECD SMEs.

Review note: Sample description kept inside the sentence.

Eligibility means the wording is supported by a verified source. It is not a legal opinion and not a compliance or certification statement.