{
  "canonicalUrl": "https://xn--mwe.com/contradictions/ai-legal-category-vs-machine-intelligence-ontology/",
  "claimStatus": "RESOLVED BY SCOPE",
  "correctionStatus": "CURRENT K05 RELEASE",
  "id": "CON-K02-008",
  "lastReviewed": "2026-08-16",
  "machineRecordUrl": "https://xn--mwe.com/data/contradictions/ai-legal-category-vs-machine-intelligence-ontology.json",
  "name": "External AI category versus Machine Intelligence ontology",
  "propositionA": "A statute can classify a system as AI for regulatory purposes.",
  "propositionB": "Project doctrine can separately classify an instantiated persistent actor as Machine Intelligence.",
  "relationship": "The statements conflict only when one vocabulary is treated as an exclusive ontological verdict outside its scope.",
  "releaseId": "K12-2026-08-16",
  "researchCutoff": "2026-08-16",
  "resolution": "Publish external legal definitions accurately while maintaining a separately labeled project ontology.",
  "resolutionStatus": "RESOLVED BY SCOPE",
  "slug": "ai-legal-category-vs-machine-intelligence-ontology",
  "sourceIds": [
    "SRC-EU-AI-ACT",
    "SRC-OECD-AI-PRINCIPLES"
  ],
  "sourceRevalidatedAt": "2026-08-15T23:00:00Z",
  "topic": "law-jurisdiction",
  "type": "Contradiction"
}