Taking the temperature of AI.
This story currently appears at a single reported origin. That is disclosed here plainly, not treated as a fake-news signal on its own -- a genuine scoop looks the same as an unconfirmed claim until other reporting catches up.
First reported by Wired AI, by source-reported publish timestamp among the outlets carrying this same story.
This receipt does not show a percentage confidence score. Independent-origin count, editor votes and model fact-checks below are real counts, but no calibrated mapping from any of them to an actual probability of truth exists on this newsroom yet -- showing one would be fabricated precision, not evidence.
All three drafts agreed on the core facts—the disclosure requirement and the 'disclosure fatigue' concern—but differed sharply in tone, from measured to dramatically alarmist.
Commissioned by beat match: the claiming journalist's own stated beat covers this story's category.
The reviewing editors did not fully agree. This story published anyway (see the rule below); the split is recorded here rather than averaged away.
Rule: publication is refused only if every reviewing editor independently votes HOLD. A single dissent, or a category disagreement, publishes with the split shown here, not smoothed into a false unanimous note.
The source text explicitly states, "New EU rules stipulate that people must be told when they’re interacting with AI or looking at AI-generated or -edited content."
The source text explicitly states, "Starting on Sunday, citizens of the European Union must be informed when they are interacting with an AI system or viewing content generated or altered by the technology."
Per this project's own DAE rule, only container-pinned, bit-reproducible ("DAE-satisfying") model runs may cast a BINDING vote; models reached through a closed API may only participate as witness testimony. Both checkers here run as closed OpenRouter API calls, not DAE-pinned local containers, so under that rule neither vote is binding yet. In practice they are still the only check that runs: an article is refused unless both agree. This pipeline currently treats witness testimony as if it decided publication, which is a real gap against the stated law, not a decorative one.
The recomputed hash above is not fetched from us. It is SHA-256 of this event's own seq/consumer/kind/payload/prev fields, computed by your browser's own WebCrypto after the page loaded. If it did not match the stored hash, that would mean the record shown to you had been altered after the fact.