{ "id": "governance-research-runs", "version": "0.1.0", "updated": "2026-08-28", "note": "The Researcher's runs. Each records what was searched, what was found, which URLs were actually fetched and what came back — including the ones our egress blocked, because a source we could not read is a fact about our reach, not about the source. Candidates are proposals for the desk; the recommendation is the Researcher's, and the Conductor's pick is recorded separately in desk.json.", "runs": [ { "id": "run-2026-08-28", "date": "2026-08-28", "role": "researcher", "brief": "Scan for new or ongoing stories on the beat. Propose candidates; recommend one.", "queries": [ "EU AI Act guidance regulator August 2026", "EU AI Act Article 6 classification guidelines delayed high-risk 2026", "digital omnibus AI Act simplification Council Parliament agreement 2026 delay high-risk", "\"AI Act\" final guidelines high-risk classification adopted August 2026 status" ], "fetched": [ { "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-starts-enforcing-ai-act-rules-and-new-transparency-requirements-2-august", "http": 200, "read": true, "publisher": "European Commission", "kind": "primary", "note": "Read in full. Published 31 July 2026. States enforcement and transparency obligations begin 2 August 2026, enforced by the Commission's AI Office with national authorities. NOTE: the page does NOT cite article numbers — the attribution to Article 50 comes from secondary commentary, not from here." }, { "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/draft-commission-guidelines-classification-high-risk-ai-systems", "http": 200, "read": true, "publisher": "European Commission", "kind": "primary", "note": "Read in full. Draft guidelines under Article 6(5), published 19 May 2026, last updated 23 July 2026, STILL DRAFT. The page states no date for final guidelines." }, { "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai", "http": 200, "read": false, "publisher": "European Commission", "kind": "primary", "note": "Resolved but not read this run. Registered for a later pass." }, { "url": "https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/6/", "http": 200, "read": false, "publisher": "artificialintelligenceact.eu", "kind": "secondary", "note": "Resolved but not read this run. A tracker, not a regulator." }, { "url": "https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/29/artificial-intelligence-council-gives-final-green-light-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/", "http": 403, "read": false, "publisher": "Council of the EU", "kind": "primary", "note": "BLOCKED BY OUR EGRESS, not confirmed dead. Cannot enter the register: gate check 7 requires a source to have resolved when checked. This is a limitation of our reach and is recorded as one." }, { "url": "https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/05/07/artificial-intelligence-council-and-parliament-agree-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/", "http": 403, "read": false, "publisher": "Council of the EU", "kind": "primary", "note": "Same: blocked by our egress, unverified, excluded from the register." } ], "candidates": [ { "id": "cand-a", "headline": "The guidance that was due in February is still a draft in August", "what": "Article 6(5) of the AI Act required the Commission to publish classification guidelines by 2 February 2026. A draft appeared on 19 May — 106 days late. As of today it is still marked draft, last touched 23 July, with no date given for a final version. That is 207 days past the statutory deadline.", "why_it_fits": "A duty exists in binding text and what satisfies it is undetermined — the publication's own UnpriceableObligation formula, instantiated from a primary source we read ourselves.", "evidence_state": "primary — read directly from the Commission's own library page", "strength": "The whole story is checkable from one official page and a date subtraction. No characterisation of anybody is required.", "weakness": "The deferral (see cand-b) reduces the immediate practical bite: the duty it governs no longer lands until December 2027.", "recommended": true }, { "id": "cand-b", "headline": "Two things happened to the AI Act on the same day, in opposite directions", "what": "On 2 August 2026 transparency obligations became enforceable, while the high-risk obligations originally due that same day were deferred to 2 December 2027 — 487 days — with the Annex I route moved to 2 August 2028.", "why_it_fits": "A single Milestone node with two Instruments pointing at it in opposite directions. It is the clearest thing on the beat to draw as a graph.", "evidence_state": "mixed — the 2 August enforcement is primary; the deferral dates reached us only through secondary commentary, because the Council pages our egress blocked are where the primary record sits", "strength": "Genuinely surprising and easy to verify once the Council pages can be reached.", "weakness": "We cannot currently read the primary source for the half that matters most. Publishing it now would mean labelling the key dates secondary.", "recommended": false }, { "id": "cand-c", "headline": "The transparency rules are live, and the Commission's own announcement names no article", "what": "The Commission's 31 July notice says transparency obligations apply from 2 August and describes them, but cites no article number. Every secondary account attributes them to Article 50. The attribution is almost certainly right and is not, on this evidence, primary.", "why_it_fits": "Exactly the primary/secondary distinction the source register exists to make, caught in the wild on day one.", "evidence_state": "primary for what the notice says; secondary for the article attribution", "strength": "A small, honest, method-demonstrating piece the publication could stand behind completely.", "weakness": "Thin as news. It is a story about citation practice, interesting mostly to this publication's own argument.", "recommended": false }, { "id": "cand-d", "headline": "180 organisations signed a Code of Practice nobody has counted", "what": "The Commission's notice states that over 180 organisations have signed the Code of Practice on transparency of AI-generated content. Who they are, and whether the list is published, is not stated on that page.", "why_it_fits": "A countable claim with an uncounted list — a natural absence report if the signatory list turns out not to be public.", "evidence_state": "primary for the number; nothing yet on the list", "strength": "If the list is unpublished, that is a finding. If it is published, it is a graph of 180 named bodies.", "weakness": "Requires a second research pass before it is a story at all. Not ready today.", "recommended": false } ], "recommendation": { "candidate": "cand-a", "because": "It is the only candidate where every load-bearing fact came from a primary source this newsroom fetched and read itself, and where the finding needs no characterisation of any organisation — which matters, because the editor role refuses that absolutely and there is no legal sign-off. It also instantiates the publication's own formula rather than merely illustrating it, and it would produce the first primary-state nodes in the graph.", "risk": "The deferral in cand-b changes what the delay means in practice. The story must carry that, or it overstates the consequence.", "next": "Freeze both Commission pages, hash them, anchor the four load-bearing quotes, and open the Council pages from a network that is not blocked so cand-b's dates can be lifted to primary." } } ] }