Side N
Who Gets Told When an Agent Breaks Something
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section Ten sources were used. Every section names at least one, and every used source appears under at least one section.
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| 1 · What happened | Reuters; Anthropic; UK AISI; Fortune (both); Tom’s Hardware |
| 2 · Timeline | Reuters; Anthropic; UK AISI; Fortune (7 September); Tom’s Hardware; Axios |
| 3 · The argument | Anthropic, for every figure and both failure modes; Fortune (7 September), for the review’s terms |
| 4 · What others add | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Articles 55 and 73; UK AISI; Fortune (7 September); Tom’s Hardware; Axios |
| 5 · Conclusion | Reuters, for the quotation that opens it; Anthropic; UK AISI; Fortune (7 September); the Act, Articles 55 and 73; TechOrange |
What the evidence base looks like Two of the ten are the parties being written about, and both are counted as such.
- 10sources behind this article
- 9of them read in full at their own page
- 3first-party incident documents — two of them written by the party at fault
- 2disagreements between published sources, both carried on the page rather than resolved
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting | 6 | five in full at their own pages; one only as far as its opening paragraph, the rest being behind a paywall |
| Statutory text | 2 | full text |
| A vendor’s account of itself | 1 | full text, including the correction appended to it the following day |
| A state body’s account of itself | 1 | full text of the incident report; the separate technical report was not read |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing