Geert Van Mol's call for sector-wide ambition on phishing echoes what itsme achieved for authentication. SOURCE 0 examines the layer itsme was never built to cover — proving what was actually instructed, not just who was logged in.

Two findings published in late May 2026 document the empirical collapse of agentic governance in the face of conventional observability. This article presents the SOURCE 0 architecture and the launch of Opposability-as-a-Service (OaaS) in response.

Amazon v. Perplexity turned on who "accesses" a platform through an AI agent. The ruling depends on a fact — what a session actually authorized — that only the AI company operating the agent can currently show.

A New Mexico court reasoned its way to leaving Meta's compliance self-reported — a deliberate choice, not an oversight. This article examines the evidentiary structure that leaves in place.

L'étude Aithos LARA montre que les modèles frontier violent le droit européen dans la majorité des scénarios testés. SOURCE 0 explique pourquoi l'observabilité ne suffit pas et ce que scelle l'OaaS.

Trump's remarks on AI regulation, Texas data centers, and China all argue about how much to regulate. None of them reach the separate question of how compliance is proven — a gap NIST's guidelines and Texas's own audit both share.

Reuters mapped the US liability landscape for rogue AI agents. This article examines the EU mirror — the withdrawn AI Liability Directive, Belgian fault law, and the evidentiary gap common to every version of the standard.

OpenAI's Astra disclosure raises a Critical-level cybersecurity flag on the basis of an evaluation record only OpenAI has seen. This article examines what would, and would not, make that determination independently verifiable.

WORM storage made a record impossible to alter once written. In 2022, the SEC added an alternative that lets a firm's own system log the alterations instead — and verify itself.

Federal Rule of Evidence 902(13) and 902(14) remove the need for a foundation witness. They do not remove the question of who is making the underlying assertion, or when it was made.

Both parties in Lorraine v. Markel lost their motions for the same reason: neither had authenticated their own e-mails. The court that decision leaned on identified the real question — not how a record was created, but what happened to it afterward.

From 18 August 2026, EU judicial authorities can order any service provider — including AI companies — to produce or preserve electronic evidence within days. The regulation requires a qualified eIDAS seal on the order. It requires nothing of the kind on the evidence itself, and says so in its own recitals.

AI governance keeps reaching for nuclear and chemical weapons treaties when it looks for a verification precedent. A lighter, working version has run since 1965: Articles 6 and 7 of the Hague Apostille Convention bind a certifying authority, distinct from the officer whose act it certifies, to answer any interested party — no standing required, no exception.

Article 1(a) of the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention names the huissier de justice. Article 1(d), read past by most commentary, names something more useful for anteriority disputes: the fact that a document already existed on a certain date. A second, independent treaty foundation for SOURCE 0's pre-execution architecture.

A preservation letter stops destruction. It does not create independence. What the AG coalition will receive from OpenAI remains self-generated evidence — and the Belgian mechanism that could fix a fact before the fact already crosses into US courts unmodified.

One OpenAI disclosure, two incidents: UK AISI detected and independently confirmed its own findings; Irregular's account exists only through OpenAI's retelling of an audit still in progress. The same document treats both as equally settled.

A firmware flaw drained over $130 million from Coldcard wallets. Coinkite says an attacker likely used AI to find it — and admits its own AI review missed it. Both claims rest on the same unverifiable ground.

AISI's INC-2026-07-28-01 discloses its protocol and attribution in full — the most transparent agentic-AI incident report published to date. But the report's own limitations section concedes that its account of agent intent rests on a paraphrase of reasoning tokens generated after the fact, not a raw record. SOURCE 0 examines what independence resolves, and what it structurally cannot.

Fourteen questions professionals ask about proving CBAM compliance — default values, carbon-price certification, quarterly certificates, delegation — each mapped to the SOURCE 0 term that answers it, and to the article it rests on.

An AI incident at OpenAI and three related incidents at Anthropic show a structural mismatch: public narrative forms in hours, verified internal reconstruction takes weeks. This article examines what that mismatch means for AI Act Article 73 notifications and Product Liability Directive litigation, and what a pre-execution seal changes.