Certian

Changelog — what changed in the record.

Every change to Certian's public record, dated, with the page affected and the basis for the change. Corrections are displayed rather than applied silently — a correction entry is kept in this log as a matter of current practice. Newest first.

Scope: an entry belongs here if its subject is the record — a fact it states, a correction to it, or an instrument entering it. Changes to the website itself are not recorded.

Register instrument · Last entry 28 Aug 2026 · Certian

28 Aug 2026

/filings A seventh filer enters the index, with the earliest carrier approval it holds: Great American Insurance Group filed ten endorsements for commercial umbrella and excess policies in Washington on 27 October 2025, two of them generative artificial intelligence exclusions — UMS 20 05 01 26 and UMU 20 45 01 26. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner issued no objection letter and approved the filing on 14 November 2025, eighteen days after submission. That is the earliest approval of a carrier’s own generative AI exclusion recorded here; the earliest approval of any form in this index remains the advisory forms in Washington on 28 July 2025. Great American had been listed under examination in this index since that list was made, named in secondary sources and not confirmed; it is now confirmed against the filing and removed from that list. SERFF GACX-134710006, Washington state file 492836, company tracking 02-010A - 25371, read 28 Aug 2026
/filings Correction — a filing date was wrong by two days: the entry for the carrier’s generative AI exclusion in Texas general liability said “Filed in Texas on 25 February 2026”. That is the date of the same carrier’s businessowners filing. The general liability filing was submitted on 23 February 2026. The entry now says so, and the prior wording is recorded here. Nothing else in the entry changes: the withdrawal date of 4 March 2026, the schedule item status date of 18 March 2026 and the fourteen objections all stand as read. SERFF UTCX-134848666, Texas state file S736094, re-read 28 Aug 2026
/filings The advisory filing pending in Texas has been pending one year: submitted 28 August 2025, re-read 28 August 2026, still with no disposition and a state status of LVL4-With Director. Two facts are added to its entries. The two forms the company withdrew from that filing on 13 July 2026 are now named — an amendment of the personal and advertising injury definition and a litigation funding disclosure condition — and neither is a generative AI exclusion. And neither of the department’s two most recent objection letters concerns the AI forms: the letter of 1 May 2026 addresses the litigation funding condition, and the letter of 7 July 2026 asks the filer to retitle two war exclusions to reference cyber. The AI questions were put on 27 January 2026 and answered on 19 March 2026. SERFF ISOF-134618980, Texas state file S732634, read 28 Aug 2026; last previous reading 21 Aug 2026
/filings Three filings read and not recorded, and one nil not recorded either: a carrier’s adoption of the advisory organisation’s 2026 general liability reference filing was approved in Texas on 3 August 2026 without objection and contains no artificial intelligence content. The same carrier’s space weather exclusion was submitted in Texas on 10 March 2026 and withdrawn on 30 March after two objection letters — not an AI form, and recorded in the sweep record because it is that carrier’s third withdrawal of an exclusion in Texas within six weeks, which a reader weighing its two withdrawn AI entries should have. An umbrella follow-form filing in Washington carries no AI content. Separately, a search of Texas for a refiling of the endorsement withdrawn in March returned nothing; that result is not recorded, because it has been run once and a single run is not treated here as a nil. SERFF UTCX-135026495, UTCX-134863467, UTCX-134863468, GACX-134429324, read 28 Aug 2026

26 Aug 2026

/filings One state asks filers whether AI wrote the filing: from 1 May 2026 every new rate and form filing submitted to Washington must state whether artificial intelligence was used to prepare it — generative AI, machine learning, or AI embedded in vendor tools — and a yes requires the filer to name the tool and vendor, say what it did and what it affected, and describe its role and impact. This is not the subject the rest of this index records. Every other instrument here governs an insurer’s use of AI in insurance, or excludes AI liability from a policy. This governs the use of AI in preparing a document submitted to a regulator, and its nearest analogue is not in insurance regulation at all but in the standing orders of federal judges who require an attorney to certify whether generative AI was used in preparing a court filing. Three Washington filings opened here carry the question and three earlier ones do not; nine filings opened in four other states in the same weeks carry no such question, including filings made by the same company in four states within two days where only the Washington one asks. Two filers have answered and both answered no. Recorded in the sweep record rather than as an entry, because it is not a form — and now a standing check, so that any filer answering yes is recorded with what it disclosed. Requirement reported by the American Association of Insurance Services, 6 Apr 2026, from a notice of the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner; question text read in SERFF LWCM-135002758, HART-135004322 and LWCM-135012825 on 26 Aug 2026
/filings CorrectionThree entries showed an edition date in a column a reader would take for an effective date: the three advisory generative AI exclusions carried 1 Jan 2026 in the date column. The entries themselves have said since 20 August that this is an edition date and not an effective date, and the method statement says the same at length — but a reader skimming the table for a date would have taken the cell at face value and got the wrong answer, which is exactly the error this register spent a week correcting elsewhere. Those three cells now read Ed. 01 26. The date column carries the date of the act an entry records; where an entry is a national form edition rather than an act in a state, it now shows the edition instead. Effective dates, where a state has set one, are in the entry, and they differ between states for the same form. Found by an outside reader working from the published page. Reported 26 Aug 2026; the entries’ own text and status are unchanged
/faq A question with one state’s answer: whether insurance regulators require companies to disclose the use of AI in preparing a filing. One does. The answer sets out what Washington asks, why it is a different obligation from the ones usually discussed under AI and insurance, and what the eight states read here show — that only Washington asks, and that both filers who have answered said no. Sourced as above; recorded 26 Aug 2026
/filings The public filing system this register is built on changed address, without notice: until today the per-state pages of SERFF Filing Access sat at filingaccess.serff.com. Those paths now return a not-found error, and the bare former domain returns an access-forbidden page with no navigation and no forward pointer — its own recovery link redirects to an authenticated login for a different product. The pages are now at serff-sfa.naic.org, reached from the NAIC’s own industry pages. Every source link in the index was repointed today and each of the eight state pages was confirmed to load. Anyone holding a citation to the old address, including every archived copy of this page, has a dead link and no signpost; both addresses are now recorded in the method statement so the change can be followed. This is the reason the tracking numbers rather than the addresses are the citable identifiers here: the address moved within a week of these entries being recorded. Old and new addresses tested 26 Aug 2026; migration described on the NAIC’s industry pages
/filings A seventh filer, and the first found by starting from a competitor’s claim: Liberty Mutual’s LCU 21 260 08 26, Exclusion — Generative Artificial Intelligence, filed in Washington on 29 June 2026 for commercial umbrella and excess and approved 13 August 2026, effective 1 August. The filing drew one objection letter, disapproving two deductible forms in the same filing on subrogation grounds and raising no question about this endorsement; the letter states that forms not specifically disapproved are approved, which is the mechanism by which this one cleared. The product name in the search grid is simply Commercial Umbrella, so no fragment query would ever have reached it: the form was named in a commercial filing tracker, and the filing was then located by the filer’s name and confirmed against the record. That is a third route into this material and the method note now says so. SERFF LWCM-135002758, Washington state file 506579 — filing record retrieved 26 Aug 2026
/filings Two facts about what a nil in this system means: the Texas instance states that it covers filings received after 13 April 2014, which bounds in time every Texas nil this register has recorded and which had been an open gap in the sweep record since 19 August. And the NAIC records that participation in the public system is a state election, and that some states are in production without having provided a public link — so a state absent from the system is not a state without filings. Both are now in the method statement, because a reader judging an absence needs them and neither is obvious from a search returning nothing. Texas instance coverage statement and NAIC industry pages, read 26 Aug 2026

24 Aug 2026

/signatories CorrectionThree organisation names were misspelled here, each by one character, and had been since 2 August: the Commission records Vucable, Omilia NLS Ltd and ABthreeC GmbH; this census carried Vulcable, Omnilia NLS Ltd and AbthreeC GmbH. All three are corrected on the page and in the CSV and JSON downloads. The errors were found by comparing every name in the census against the Commission’s published list rather than by anyone reporting them; the remaining 232 names matched exactly, and no count was affected. This census states that names are reproduced as published, which makes a spelling that differs from the source an error here regardless of whether it matches the organisation’s own usage — and these were real companies recorded under names slightly not their own. The Count series now carries the re-confirmation as its own dated entry, because checking a record is an act with a date like any other. Every name compared against the European Commission’s published list, 24 Aug 2026; that page carried a Last update stamp of 20 Aug 2026 at the time of the check
/signatories The Commission’s own Section 1 figures still do not reconcile, confirmed against the source: the Commission’s page states 82 Section 1 signatories and its table below lists 83 names. This register has recorded both figures since 2 August without adjudicating between them. On 24 August the table was counted directly from the Commission’s page: 83 rows, no duplicates. Section 2 reconciles exactly — 152 stated, 152 listed — so the difference sits in one column only. The Commission’s stated Section 1 figure was 83 on 2 August and 82 by 10 August, while the table did not change. Both figures remain the Commission’s and this register continues to record rather than resolve them. Commission list counted directly, 24 Aug 2026; Count series entries of 2, 10 and 17 Aug 2026
/filings A heading a day behind its own contents: the sweep record was headed “eight states, 19–20 August 2026” while carrying sections dated 21 August. The heading now reads 19–21 August. No sweep content changed. Inspection of the deployed source, 24 Aug 2026
/signatories The census now says how to cite it: a citation block gives the record in plain, note and BibTeX forms, each carrying the retrieval date. The date is the part that matters and the part usually dropped — the Commission updates its list on an ongoing basis, so a citation without one describes a list that may since have changed. The block also points to the CSV and JSON for anyone reusing the list rather than referring to the page: both carry the source, the retrieval date and the counts, so a copy stays interpretable after it leaves here. Corrections to this record are appended and dated rather than applied silently, which is what allows a dated citation to remain checkable against what the page said when it was made. Citation forms added 24 Aug 2026; underlying record unchanged

22 Aug 2026

/signatories The answer moved above the wall of names: the organisation lookup was placed after the two published section lists, so a reader arriving with one company in mind scrolled past two hundred and thirty-five names before finding the search box built to save them the trouble. The lookup now sits first. The Commission’s own arrangement — two lists, one per section, names exactly as published — remains on the page beneath it, collapsed behind a summary and unchanged. Every name stays in the page for anything reading it directly. Same source and retrieval date; arrangement only
/signatories CorrectionA stray character in the page head, introduced this morning and live for under an hour: an edit to the page description left a doubled angle bracket immediately after it. A stray character in a document head ends the head as far as the parser is concerned, so everything after it — including the icon reference — was treated as page content and ignored. The page rendered normally and the record was unaffected; the icon did not load on that page alone, in every browser. Fixed, and a head-integrity check now runs against every page before a build is released: stray characters between the head elements, doubled brackets, and an icon reference that has fallen outside the head. Found from a reader report; cause identified in the deployed source, 22 Aug 2026
/signatories The census made answerable one organisation at a time: the signatory list has been published here since 2 August as the Commission publishes it — two lists, one per section. It now also appears as a single table with one row per organisation and both sections shown together, filterable by name. The question a reader actually arrives with is whether a named organisation signed, and which section; two parallel lists answer that only by scanning both. Same names, same source, same retrieval date — rearranged so that one name can be found and read in one place. European Commission, full list of signatories published 31 Jul 2026, retrieved 17 Aug 2026 — names as published
/signatories The forty-five are now named rather than asserted: this register has stated since 2 August that 45 organisations signed both sections, arrived at by arithmetic — 83 plus 152 section signatures, less 45 appearing twice, giving about 190 distinct organisations. Which forty-five was not shown, and a reader could not check the figure without comparing two lists by hand. The overlap is now computed from the Commission’s own two lists and the organisations are named: filter the census to Both sections. The arithmetic holds exactly — 83 Section 1, 152 Section 2, 45 in both, 190 distinct. Computed from the two published Commission lists as retrieved 17 Aug 2026; counts confirmed against the Commission’s stated figures
/signatories The census is now downloadable, and the page states what it holds: the signatory census is published as CSV and JSON under CC BY 4.0, one row per organisation with the sections it signed, the source, and the retrieval date — so the count can be checked rather than taken. The page’s machine-readable description previously said the Commission’s list “is expected”; it was written before publication and had not been revised since. It now states the four counts, the licence, the coverage period and the downloads. A dead markup template left in place for the list that has since been published was also removed. Structured data and downloads revised 22 Aug 2026; underlying record unchanged

21 Aug 2026

Register-wide CorrectionThis register promised a cadence it does not owe and cannot guarantee: nine statements across five pages said that sweeps run weekly, that registers are examined weekly, or that a record is continuously updated. No such commitment should have been made. A register whose value rests on its statements about itself being true cannot carry a schedule it may not keep, and its own rule — that where the changelog records no sweep none was conducted — makes any lapse checkable by anyone. All nine now describe the practice instead: sweeps are hand-conducted, each is entered here with its date, no schedule is promised, and the date on an entry is the date it was last confirmed rather than a guarantee that it has been confirmed since. Nothing about how this register is actually maintained has changed. What has changed is that it no longer claims otherwise. Inspection of the deployed source, 21 Aug 2026 — /filings, /litigation, /changelog, /signatories and the homepage
/filings What this index does not cover, stated on its face: a standing note now records where the index stands and what is outstanding — forty-two states unread, New York opened and not closed, two filings undisposed as of today whose movement this index will not know until the next sweep, and three effective dates recorded in entries that fall after today and have not been confirmed as having taken effect. The note carries its own date. A reader should be able to judge the boundary of a record without reconstructing it from the entries, and where the date on an entry is old, the entry is old. Standing note, /filings, dated 21 Aug 2026
/filings Six filings named yesterday as unread have been read, and one of them was not what the pattern predicted: ten entries are added. The Hartford’s Spectrum generative AI exclusions are recorded in Connecticut, where the filing carries four forms across the commercial package and umbrella books, and in Pennsylvania, where the filing of the same programme carries only the two package forms. That difference could not have been inferred from the product name, the tracking numbers or the pattern in other states; it required opening the filing. Also recorded: Utica National’s exclusion in Pennsylvania in businessowners, general liability and professional errors and omissions, and in Connecticut in professional errors and omissions, each disposed within four days of submission and each effective 1 January 2027. SERFF HART-135012606 and HART-135004492; UTCX-134848835, UTCX-134848660, UTCX-134853033 and UTCX-134853070 — filing records retrieved 21 Aug 2026
/filings A third distinction, and the one most likely to mislead: the index already separated whether a state accepted a form from whether a carrier adopted it. Adoption is not attachment either. In July 2026 one large carrier stated that it adopts standard-forms revisions broadly to keep its filings aligned with the catalogue, and has no plans to incorporate the generative AI exclusions into its standard liability offering; another said it was not specifically seeking to use or implement them. Those are carrier statements in trade press rather than filings, so they are recorded in the sweep record and not as entries. An adoption filing establishes that a carrier may use a form. Nothing in a state filing system establishes that it does — and a count of adoption filings is therefore not a count of policies carrying the exclusion. Carrier statements reported in trade press, July 2026; recorded as reported statements, not as filings
/faq The question the filings answer and nobody had published: a new question asks which states have accepted the ISO generative AI exclusions and what acceptance means in each, and answers it with the eight states read, each state’s own disposition wording, and the effective date it set. Only one of the eight approved the forms on their merits. Four recorded them under file-and-use or an equivalent, which is acceptance onto the record rather than review of the content. One filed them alongside five objection letters that concerned other forms. One has neither approved nor disapproved them after twelve months. In one, the filer’s general liability filings do not appear in the state system at all. Filing records for eight states, retrieved from SERFF Filing Access 19–21 Aug 2026, each cited by tracking number in the index
/faq CorrectionA third instance of the claim corrected yesterday: the answer to whether a general liability policy still covers AI-related claims stated that the endorsements began in January 2026 and had broad approval in state filings. Neither survives the filings. January 2026 is the forms’ edition date, and of the eight states read one approved them on the merits while one has neither approved nor disapproved them. The answer now says what has to happen before an exclusion reaches a policy: a state accepts the filing, a carrier elects to use the form, and the form is attached at renewal. Those are three separate events and the endorsement schedule on the policy is the only thing that answers the third. The prior wording had been on the page since 15 July 2026. Filing records for eight states, 19–21 Aug 2026

20 Aug 2026

/faq CorrectionThis register was itself repeating the claim its own filings now contradict: the questions page stated that the ISO generative AI endorsements were effective from 1 January 2026. They carry the edition date 01 26, and an edition date is not an effective date — the filer says so in its own filings, and the seven states read give four different answers. The answer has been corrected on the page and in its structured data, and now states what the filings show: the edition date, the filer’s own statement that it sets no effective date in a state, and the fact that four different effective dates appear across the states read, with one state having neither approved nor disapproved the forms. A second answer, on when an exclusion takes effect on an existing policy, now carries the state-by-state dates. The prior wording had been on the page since 15 July 2026. Filing records for seven states read 19–20 Aug 2026; corrected answer sourced to those filings by tracking number
Register-wide The machine-readable summary now describes what the register actually holds: llms.txt described the filings index as it stood in July. It now records that the index carries per-state filing status for named endorsement forms with the regulator’s own disposition wording, the submission date, the effective date the state set, and the tracking number by which the filing can be retrieved; that eight state filing systems have been read; and that the changelog doubles as the sweep record, entering each search with its query and its result including where nothing was found. A section was added naming the four things this register holds that are not held elsewhere, among them regulator correspondence, carrier uptake as a fact separate from approval, and dated nil results with the reason for the absence where one is established. llms.txt, revised 20 Aug 2026
/filings The same form takes effect on four different dates, and in one state on none: CG 40 47, CG 40 48 and CG 35 08 carry the edition date 01 26, and that is an edition date. Of the seven states whose records this register has now read, Pennsylvania and Washington set 1 January 2026; Illinois set 1 February 2026, having moved it from 1 January; Connecticut set 1 March 2026; Colorado records that the filer establishes no effective date there and supplies one only because every filing must carry one; Ohio recorded the forms filed without setting one; and Texas has neither approved nor disapproved them, so no effective date exists there at all. A single national effective date for these forms is not what the filings show. The index now records each state’s submission date in the entry and its effective date separately, because they are different facts and in several states they are months apart. SERFF ISOF-134593459 (PA), ISOF-134593466 (WA), ISOF-134593437 (IL), ISOF-134593432 (CT), ISOF-134618976 (CO), ISOF-134593456 (OH), ISOF-134618980 (TX) — filing records read 19–20 Aug 2026
/filings Nine proprietary AI exclusions from one carrier, two families, two effective dates: on 10 August 2026 The Hartford filed five generative artificial intelligence exclusions for general liability in Pennsylvania — HC 35 11, HC 35 12, HC 35 13, HC 35 14 and HG 21 74, each a separate form, edition 03 26 — disposed the same day as File and Use and effective 10 October 2026. These are a different family from the four SL and SU forms the same group filed for its commercial package and umbrella programmes in Washington and Illinois at the end of June, which take effect on 12 September 2026. In its explanatory memorandum the company states that it is adopting the ISO 2025 general liability revision which it had previously non-adopted in Pennsylvania, and identifies its own earlier non-adoption by tracking number. A carrier declining an advisory form, developing its own, and then adopting the advisory form alongside it is a sequence that exists in the filing record and nowhere else. SERFF HART-135048649, Pennsylvania, submitted and disposed 10 Aug 2026; prior non-adoption HART-134784497
/filings Connecticut recorded the withdrawn Texas endorsement effective eight days before Texas objected to it: Utica National filed the same generative AI exclusion in Connecticut on 23 February 2026; the Department disposed of it on 26 February as Recorded Effective as Submitted, effective 1 January 2027, with no objection. The Texas objection letter issued on 3 March and the company withdrew the form from its Texas businessowners filing on 6 March. The endorsement is now recorded in five states, and Texas is the only one in which it did not survive. A second Connecticut filing carrying the same form, in general liability, remains undisposed — on an objection letter that concerns the litigation funding condition in the same filing and raises no question about the AI exclusion. SERFF UTCX-134848820 and UTCX-134848604, Connecticut state files 202601024 and 202601034
/filings No two states name their dispositions the same way, and the index now shows its working: Texas approves by Director; Washington approves and stamps each form; Illinois files and marks forms reviewed; Colorado closes everything Filed, including material unrelated to policy content; Ohio files; Connecticut records effective as submitted, and separately has an approved-as-submitted status it did not use here; Pennsylvania files-and-uses forms and approves rules as a matter of filing type; New York carries an explicit disapproved status which appears on other filers’ general liability forms. This index translates all of that into four terms, so the raw strings are now recorded alongside the translation. Where a state has also set an effective date, that is recorded as its own fact rather than folded into a status. Filing records for eight states, read 19–20 Aug 2026
/filings Two entries that had never been examined now record where they were looked for: the W. R. Berkley and AmTrust entries were recorded from secondary sources with no state filing record read. Both filers have now been searched by company name in five states. Neither form was returned in any of them, and three different reasons apply rather than one. Texas exempts the lines those forms amend from filing altogether. Colorado records one filer’s claims-made liability forms by annual certification of a forms list rather than as individual filings, so an individual form would not appear there either — a structural explanation that a bare nil would have concealed. Washington, Connecticut and Pennsylvania each carry individually filed forms from both filers in the relevant lines, and neither AI exclusion is among them. The entries say so, and draw no conclusion about whether the forms are in use. Company-name searches, five SERFF instances, 19–20 Aug 2026; SERFF BNIC-134991880 for the Colorado annual certification
/filings CorrectionA duplicated heading, and six filings named rather than recorded: the sweep record carried the heading Open thread — closed twice from yesterday’s deploy; the duplicate has been removed. Separately, six filings carrying generative AI exclusions were returned by yesterday’s and today’s searches in Connecticut and Pennsylvania and their filing records have not been opened. No entry is made for any of them. They are listed in the sweep record by tracking number so that the gap is visible and closes as each is read: a filing seen in a results grid is not an entry in this index, and the difference is the whole method. Found on inspection of the deployed source and of today’s search results, 20 Aug 2026

19 Aug 2026

/filings Five states read, and Texas is the outlier: the same advisory filing — the 2025 General Liability Multistate Endorsement Update, carrying the generative artificial intelligence exclusions CG 40 47, CG 40 48 and CG 35 08 — was located in Texas, Colorado, Washington, Illinois and Ohio. Washington approved it nineteen days after submission with no objection letter. Ohio recorded it filed in six days. Colorado in five. Illinois recorded the three exclusions as reviewed and issued five objection letters over eleven months, none of which concerned them; they addressed the litigation funding condition, the punitive damages exclusion and the assault or battery exclusions, each on a named Illinois statute. Texas has issued seven objection letters, has neither approved nor disapproved the forms, and the filing remains pending with the Director after twelve months. Four states out of five raised no question about these endorsements. One did, at length. The register records each state as that state, and draws no national conclusion from any of them. SERFF ISOF-134618980 (TX), ISOF-134618976 (CO), ISOF-134593466 (WA), ISOF-134593437 (IL), ISOF-134593456 (OH), with rules companions — complete filing records retrieved from SERFF Filing Access 19 Aug 2026
/filings The same carrier’s exclusion approved in two states in the week it was withdrawn from a third: Utica National Insurance Group filed a generative artificial intelligence exclusion in at least four jurisdictions in late February 2026. Illinois recorded it filed on 2 March after one objection letter asking what practical application the company expected for it. Washington approved it on 2 March, three days after submission, with no objection at all. Texas objected on 3 March, and the company withdrew the endorsement from its general liability filing on 4 March and from its businessowners filing on 6 March. The Texas withdrawals are therefore a fact about Texas, not about the endorsement: the same carrier’s same exclusion cleared two other states in the same week. The form numbers differ by line — 8-E-4460 for businessowners and general liability in Texas, 14-E-1145 for professional errors and omissions in Illinois and Washington — so a search keyed to a form number would have found one and missed the others. SERFF UTCX-134853043 (IL), UTCX-134859583 (WA), UTCX-134848666 and UTCX-134848840 (TX)
/filings A second Texas withdrawal, in a line the register had not recorded: the endorsement withdrawn from Utica National’s Texas businessowners filing was filed a second time the same day in general liability, and withdrawn from that filing too. The Department’s objection letter of 3 March 2026 carried fourteen objections against it, in the same terms as those put to the businessowners filing, and stated that the Department was reviewing similar endorsements filed by ISO and sharing those concerns with the filer. The company answered on 4 March with a request to withdraw. The register had recorded one Texas withdrawal; there were two, four days apart. SERFF UTCX-134848666, Texas state file S736094, read 19 Aug 2026
/filings A carrier nobody was watching, three weeks from effect: The Hartford filed four proprietary generative artificial intelligence exclusions — a full exclusion and a personal-and-advertising-injury-only variant, in each of its commercial package and commercial umbrella programmes — in Washington on 1 July 2026 and in Illinois on 30 June 2026, requesting an effective date of 12 September 2026. Washington approved them the following day without a question. Illinois asked one: what practical application the company expected for the exclusions. The company answered that artificial-intelligence losses are not contemplated in the liability coverage form or in the base rates, that the potential exists for increasingly frequent losses, and that it wished to have the endorsements available as an underwriting tool. Illinois filed them. The same forms do not appear in Ohio, where the rest of that programme’s filings do. These entries were reached by product-name fragment; no company-name query in this register’s plan would have found them. SERFF HART-135004322 (WA), HART-135004313 and HART-135004720 (IL)
/filings Approval and uptake are different facts, and the register now holds both: carriers file explicit non-adoptions and delayed adoptions of advisory cycles, and Ohio gives that filing type a name of its own. One carrier group filed a delayed adoption of the 2025 general liability cycle in Colorado and Washington, and of the umbrella cycle in both. Another filed a non-adoption of the same general liability cycle in Illinois and Ohio, then filed its own generative AI exclusions instead. A third adopted the cycle in Illinois and filed a delayed adoption in Ohio the same day. Whether a form is approved in a state and whether anyone uses it there are separate questions; the first is close to settled in four of five states read, and the second plainly is not. SERFF BNIC-134767394 and BNIC-134774703 (CO), BNIC-134767406 and BNIC-134774924 (WA), HART-134795560 (IL), HART-134774759 and UTCX-134744669 and UTCX-134744649 (OH, IL)
/filings New York recorded as opened, not closed: an advisory organisation’s presence in a state’s filing system is line-specific. In New York, filings by Insurance Services Office, Inc. appear across commercial auto, commercial property, dwelling, homeowners and commercial interline for 2025 and 2026 — and general liability is absent from all of them, as is any carrier adoption of the 2025 general liability cycle. Until it is established that a filer files a line in a system, a nil under that filer’s name there means nothing, and this register will not record one as though it did. Whether these forms are available in New York is not established by this method. The method note now carries the check that must come first in every state. SERFF Filing Access, New York instance, searched 19 Aug 2026 — company name and product name queries, unbounded and from 1 Jan 2025
/filings The advisory forms located in a state system for the first time — and not approved there: Insurance Services Office, Inc. filed CG 40 47 and CG 40 48, the generative artificial intelligence exclusions, in Texas on 28 August 2025 within its 2025 General Liability Multistate Endorsement Update. Almost twelve months later the filing has no disposition: it stands with the Director, and neither form carries a schedule item status. The Texas Department of Insurance issued seven objection letters between 2 September 2025 and 7 July 2026, and in the letter of 12 November 2025 a department reviewer stated that the two exclusions are overly broad, that given the ubiquity of AI the department was unable to approve exclusions that could remove coverage that would otherwise exist, and asked the filer to withdraw the forms or narrow their scope. The filer declined eight days later, describing the endorsements as optional and as reinforcing coverage intent, and has neither revised nor withdrawn them since — while withdrawing two other forms from the same filing on 13 July 2026. Two points of care, because this entry is the kind that gets repeated: an objection letter is not a disapproval, and the department has neither approved nor disapproved these forms. What the record shows is a filing that remains pending after a year, and a reviewer’s stated position within it. This is one state and one department; the filer’s own account of the other jurisdictions points the other way, and is recorded below. SERFF ISOF-134618980, Texas state file S732634, and companion rules filing ISOF-134618871 / S732635 — complete filing records retrieved from SERFF Filing Access 19 Aug 2026
/filings CorrectionAn edition date was recorded as an effective date: the three advisory generative AI exclusion entries were recorded as Effective from 1 January 2026. That date is the forms’ edition date. The filer states in its own filings that it does not establish an effective date in a state and that each insurer electing the revision determines its own — so the status of an advisory form is a fact about a particular jurisdiction, and those entries carried none. Each now records the national edition under a new jurisdiction value, Multistate, with state-by-state status held as separate entries added one state at a time. Texas is the first, and it reads Filed rather than Effective. The prior characterisation entered this register on 12 August 2026 and was corrected on 19 August 2026, the day the underlying filing was read. Filing description, SERFF ISOF-134618980 (read 19 Aug 2026)
/filings A figure this register can be measured against, recorded before the measuring: asked by the Texas Department of Insurance on 27 January 2026 to name the states that had approved CG 40 47 and CG 40 48 and to give their tracking numbers, Insurance Services Office, Inc. answered on 19 March 2026 that the forms are implemented in 46 jurisdictions and have not been disapproved or amended. No list was supplied. Its earlier statement, on 20 November 2025, had put the figure at 43 and used the word approved. The figure is recorded as the filer’s own statement in a public filing rather than as a count this register has confirmed — and it is the first external number the state sweep can be compared against. If reading twelve states produces a confirmation rate far below it, either the sweep method or the claim needs examining. The comparison is stated now, before the data arrives, so that it cannot be arranged afterwards. Objection letter 27 Jan 2026 and response letter 19 Mar 2026, SERFF ISOF-134618980
/filings What a state filing system does not hold, entered as a stated limit: Texas removed the form filing requirement for eighteen kinds of commercial insurance in 2021 under Insurance Code §2301.0031, among them directors’ and officers’, employment practices, fiduciary, errors and omissions and professional liability other than medical, commercial excess and umbrella, media liability, commercial cybersecurity, and product liability, product recall and completed operations. An endorsement in one of those lines need not appear in the Texas system whether or not it exists, so a sweep that finds nothing there has found nothing about the market. The department applied that provision in writing on 21 October 2025, telling a filer that a form modifying an exempt coverage part should be withdrawn or closed as filed for information only rather than reviewed. Exemption from filing is not exemption from regulation, and the commissioner may reimpose the requirement for a listed kind of insurance for up to a year after notice and hearing. The method statement now carries this, and entries it bears on say so. Tex. Ins. Code §2301.0031, added by S.B. 1367, 87th Legislature (2021), effective 1 Sep 2021; objection letter 21 Oct 2025, SERFF ISOF-134618980
/filings One entry appended — a generative AI exclusion withdrawn in Texas after regulator objections: Utica National Insurance Group filed endorsement 8-E-4460 Ed. 01-2026, Exclusion — Generative Artificial Intelligence, for Texas Businessowners policies on 25 February 2026 across five of its companies, requesting an effective date of 1 January 2027. The Texas Department of Insurance issued an objection letter on 3 March 2026 carrying fourteen objections directed at that endorsement, among them what the term generative AI was meant to cover, whether indirect injury was excluded, and how the risk of taking information from generative AI differs from taking it from a search engine, a website or a library. On 6 March 2026 the company answered all fourteen with the same sentence, a request to withdraw the form without prejudice, and withdrew the companion rule page the same day. The Department recorded the form’s schedule-item status as withdrawn on 13 March 2026, and closed the filing as approved on 20 March 2026 — that approval reaching a different endorsement in the same filing, which survived. This is the first entry in the index recorded as Withdrawn, the first recorded from a state filing system, and the first whose source is a regulator’s own correspondence. The index stands at eleven entries, of which six are on the exclusion side. SERFF UTCX-134848840 and UTCX-134848839, Texas state files S736152 and S736151 — complete filing records retrieved from SERFF Filing Access 19 Aug 2026
/filings Sweep record — Texas, first state swept: SERFF Filing Access was searched for Texas on 19 August 2026 on insurance product name containing artificial, with type of insurance left unset. One filing was returned and is recorded. The search interface offers no form-number field and no full-text search, so the form-number queries this register had planned cannot be run in it: company name and insurance product name are the only text fields, and both are assigned by the filer. A query of this kind therefore reaches only filings whose filer-assigned product name happens to carry the word searched, and a nil result carries correspondingly little weight. The remaining Texas queries and the other eleven bellwether states have not been run. SERFF Filing Access, Texas instance, searched 19 Aug 2026
/filings A column added — jurisdiction, and the difference between a filing and a form: the index gains a jurisdiction column, recording for each entry whether this register has read a state’s filing record for that form. Ten of the eleven entries carry not examined or, for entries that are not US state form filings, an em dash. The Texas entry also occasions a distinction the index will now hold throughout: a filing’s status and the status of an individual form inside it are different facts and can point in opposite directions. The filing recorded today closed as approved while the form this register cares about was withdrawn from it. A results grid shows the first; only the form schedule inside the record shows the second. This index records the form. Form schedule, SERFF UTCX-134848840, read 19 Aug 2026
Register-wide CorrectionTen pages were displaying the current date in place of the date recorded: a script on the homepage, the questions page, both maps, the signatory tracker and three guides overwrote every “recorded,” “last reviewed,” “status as of” and “updated” stamp on the page with the date the reader happened to visit. The dates written into those pages were correct; the script replaced them on every view, so a guide recorded on 16 July 2026 announced itself as recorded today, whatever today was. The script has been removed and the recorded dates now display as recorded. The same defect ran in a second form on the homepage and the questions page, where a separate script filled the “Register entry” stamp with the reader’s own date — a label that states when an entry was made, carrying the date it was looked at. That script is removed too, and both stamps now read 2026-07-15, the date recorded in the pages. The defect was introduced with the pages themselves and had been live since 15 July 2026. A register whose stated advantage is that its dates are honest published five weeks of dates that were not. Found on inspection of the deployed source, 19 Aug 2026 — ten pages affected across two scripts

18 Aug 2026

/litigation New instrument opened with an empty record — AI Coverage Litigation Register: a record of decided US cases in which the meaning or application of an AI exclusion endorsement, or of an affirmative AI liability policy, is at issue. It opens with no decided case recorded. The register is published now, before its first entry, because the interval between an exclusion attaching and a court interpreting it is ordinarily measured in years, and the dated series of readings across that interval cannot be reconstructed afterwards. A named practitioner statement published the day before this register opened reports the same absence independently. As with the filing sweeps, a nil is a record of a reading and not a finding about the world: a dispute may be pending, unreported, sealed, in arbitration, or resolved without a written decision. Register opened 18 Aug 2026 · corroborating practitioner statement, trade press, 17 Aug 2026

17 Aug 2026

/filings CorrectionBerkley PC 51380 — line of business corrected, E&O to EPL: the entry recorded the endorsement as reaching Directors and Officers, Errors and Omissions, and Fiduciary Liability. The endorsement form states that it amends three coverage parts: Directors and Officers (PC 51000 DO 02-18), Employment Practices Liability (PC 51000 EPL 02-18) and Fiduciary Liability (PC 51000 FLI 02-18). Errors and Omissions is not among them. The entry now carries the full form designation PC 51380 00 (06-24), the form’s June 2024 edition date, and the endorsement form itself as its source in place of the secondary summary previously cited. The prior characterisation entered this register on 12 August 2026 and was corrected on 17 August 2026, the day the form was read. W. R. Berkley, Artificial Intelligence Exclusion (Absolute), form PC 51380 00 (06-24) — endorsement form (read 17 Aug 2026)
/filings Source attached to the aiSure entry: the Munich Re and Mosaic entry has carried no source identifier since it was recorded on 2 August 2026. The partnership announcement is now attached, and the stated initial capacity of EUR/USD/CAD 15 million is recorded with it. Every entry in this index now carries a source. The date remains at month precision: the announcement is stamped 26 February 2026 and trade reports of it disagree by one day, so the day is not recorded. Mosaic Insurance — partnership announcement (retrieved 17 Aug 2026)
/filings One entry appended — the exclusion side gains a carrier: AmTrust Financial Services is recorded on the exclusion side after stating on 23 July 2026 that it is incorporating AI exclusions into its policies broadly, describing AI as an area of emerging aggregation risk. The entry is recorded as Filed: no approval and no date of effect has been confirmed by this register. The form number CU990052 1025 is reported by a secondary filing tracker and is recorded as reported, not as confirmed, pending a state filing system record. The index stands at ten entries, of which five are on the exclusion side. Trade analysis, 23 Jul 2026 · secondary filing tracker, record of 4 Aug 2026 (both retrieved 17 Aug 2026)
/signatories Census refreshed; recording policy stated: the census now reproduces the Commission’s signatory list as currently published (retrieved 17 August 2026, page stamped 12 August 2026) rather than the initial list as published on 31 July. Four entries appear under updated names on the source page; the census carries the current forms and the prior annotations have been removed. Policy: this register records counts and substantive changes — additions, withdrawals, and changes in status or deadline. Spellings, renamings, and other housekeeping on the source page are not recorded as events, and a party’s name is not retained here after it ceases to appear on the Commission’s list. The stated-count difference on the source page is now a standing note beneath the Count rather than a repeated entry. Commission — Code of Practice signatory list (retrieved 17 Aug 2026) · Certian recording policy
/certifications · / Instrument opened — AI Certification Comparison: four pathways an organisation is asked about in procurement — ISO/IEC 42001, IEEE CertifAIEd, the Responsible AI Institute, and the Nemko AI Trust Mark — set against the same attributes: what is assessed, who assesses it, accreditation of the assessor, whether a public register of holders exists, renewal, published price, recorded holders, and status under the EU AI Act. Recorded and not ranked. The comparison notes that no harmonised standard developed under the AI Act mandate has yet been cited in the Official Journal, and that none of the four confers a presumption of conformity under Article 40; EN 18286 has reached approval and citation remains a separate step. Attributes not yet examined are marked as such. Stewards’ published programme pages · ANAB accreditation programme · Commission — standardisation of the AI Act · CEN-CENELEC JTC 21 · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 40 (all retrieved 17 Aug 2026)
/filings Two entries appended — the affirmative side grows: Mayflower Specialty and Hadron’s Affirmative AI Liability Program (launched 24 June 2026; D&O, EPL and E&O with a difference-in-conditions and excess layer; US$5M limits; placement structured by Aon Reinsurance Solutions) and Testudo’s Generative AI Liability Insurance at Lloyd’s (underwriting from January 2026, timed to the 1 January Verisk exclusion edition; panel includes Apollo, Atrium and QBE; limits to US$9.25M per insured recorded March 2026). Both move from the under-examination queue on multi-source confirmation. Two names join the queue from the same confirmation pass: Coalition’s reported deepfake endorsement and the Google Cloud Risk Protection Program. The index stands at nine entries. Launch announcement 24 Jun 2026 · Testudo · capacity announcement 9 Mar 2026 (all retrieved 17 Aug 2026)

14 Aug 2026

/screener · /faq Update recorded — the AI Omnibus is adopted law: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force 27 July 2026. Article 50 applies from 2 August 2026 as scheduled; the narrow grace period this register already recorded from the May provisional agreement is now statutory — providers of generative systems on the EU market before 2 August 2026 meet the Article 50(2) machine-readable marking obligation from 2 December 2026, and systems placed later comply on placement. The same regulation defers Annex III high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027 and Annex I to 2 August 2028 — outside this register’s disclosure scope, recorded for context. Instrument citations upgraded from “provisional agreement” to the regulation. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 · Commission — Article 50 FAQ (retrieved 14 Aug 2026)

12 Aug 2026

/filings · / Instrument opened — AI Insurance Filings Index: a two-sided record of AI insurance filings — exclusion endorsements and affirmative AI liability products in one fixed schema (organisation · form · side · line · status · date · source), with a stated method, a four-term status vocabulary (Filed · Approved · Effective · Withdrawn), and a named under-examination queue. Opens with seven entries: the three ISO/Verisk generative-AI exclusion forms (CG 40 47 01 26 · CG 40 48 01 26 · CG 35 08 01 26, edition 1 Jan 2026), the W. R. Berkley absolute AI exclusion (PC 51380), and three affirmative records (Armilla AI Liability Insurance at Lloyd’s · Chaucer–Armilla Vanguard AI · Munich Re aiSure via Mosaic). Public filing-system sweeps are hand-conducted; findings are appended with their dates. ISO/Verisk rollout documentation · Gallagher advisory · Armilla announcement 30 Apr 2025 · launch coverage Feb 2026 · register record 2 Aug 2026
/filings Index refined, downloads added: the method statement now states the register’s non-promotion rule in full — an edition is recorded as an edition, an approval as an approval; the CG 40 47 01 26 entry carries an evidence note (form text not publicly retrievable; recorded from Verisk rollout documentation and broker advisories); and the record is downloadable as CSV and JSON under CC BY 4.0. Certian editorial method · record as of 12 Aug 2026

10 Aug 2026

/signatories Count recorded: the Commission’s signatory page states Section 1 — 82 · Section 2 — 152, as retrieved 8 and 10 August. No organisation was added or withdrawn against the initial list; the census is refreshed to the published list. A note on the stated figures is kept beneath the Count. Commission — Code of Practice signatory list (retrieved 10 Aug 2026)
/signatories · / · /faq Instrument renamed: the Signatory Tracker becomes the Signatory Register — “tracker” is retired from the register’s self-description. Records, series, and URL are unchanged; historical entries and correction notices retain their original wording. Certian editorial vocabulary — decision recorded 10 Aug 2026
/lexicon Definitions revised: the adjective “dated” is replaced by “date-stamped” in four definitions (correction; the judgment-locus principle; Certian Signatory Count; Certian). Meanings unchanged; definitions are versioned from this date. Certian lexicon — versioned definitions
/lexicon · /faq · / Definition revised — “Certian”: the entry is re-sequenced so the etymology and the record-keeper lineage lead (librarian, custodian, historian — the certian doesn’t make the call) and “one letter short of certain, by design” closes as the epigraph; a second sense is added for the register itself. Applied at the lexicon and Q.44; the homepage now carries the entry in dictionary form, with the register’s recorded pronunciation. Certian lexicon — versioned definitions

6 Aug 2026

/signatories · /faq Correction: the Commission revised its signing FAQ on 29 July — the page now displays the 27 July deadline throughout under a “Last update: 29 July 2026” stamp, with expanded content, confirmed live 6 August. The register’s 2–3 August observations had retrieved cached copies of the older 22 July text; the inference that the live page remained unrevised is corrected, with the full sequence preserved in the notice on the signatory page. From the revised page, newly recorded: Section 1 may also be signed by generative-model providers and by marking/detection technology providers. Commission — Code of Practice signing FAQ (revised 29 Jul 2026), confirmed live 6 Aug 2026
/faq · /signatories Two entries added: whether signing the Code reduces potential fines — the Act’s Article 99(7) fine factors do not enumerate code adherence, unlike GDPR Article 83(2)(j), a distinction absent from much current commentary (Q.47) — and the final Guidelines’ disclosure requirements for AI agents, including the identity of the person on whose behalf an agent acts (Q.48). The adequacy card on the signatory page cross-references the fines entry. Reg. (EU) 2024/1689 Art. 99(7); Reg. (EU) 2016/679 Art. 83(2)(j); Commission — final Guidelines (20 Jul 2026), corroborated across six independent law-firm analyses

4 Aug 2026

/faq · /signatories Recorded from the Commission’s Article 50 FAQ (updated 24 Jul): content generated before 2 August 2026 requires no retroactive labelling (Q.45 — distinct from the 2 December systems transition); signatories benefit from legal certainty, predictability, and trust, while non-adherents must demonstrate compliance through alternative adequate means and may receive more information requests. The 2 Aug source-page observation re-confirmed 3 Aug: the signing FAQ continues to display the 22 July date. Commission — Article 50 FAQ; Commission — Code of Practice signing FAQ
/faq The verification-and-liability policy family enters the questions record (Q.46): the federal FRONTIER Act's licensed-verifier requirements, Connecticut's first-in-nation verification pilot, Virginia's study directive, and the scholarly mandatory-insurance proposals — recorded as watched developments, distinct from the disclosure laws the register chiefly tracks. H.R. 9925 (23 Jul 2026); Connecticut SB 5 (27 May 2026); G. Weil, AI Frontiers (29 Jul 2026)

3 Aug 2026

/faq · /lexicon The name enters the record: “Is Certian a misspelling of certain?” added to the questions (Q.44) — the etymology (certus + -ian) and the boundary the name states: certain is a claim, and the register makes none. “Certian” added to the lexicon as the final structural term; the definition is versioned from this date. Certian, Inc., Delaware file 10393891; lexicon versioning rule

2 Aug 2026

/faq Five entries added on application day: the fine tier for Article 50 violations (€15M / 3%, distinct from the €35M / 7% prohibited-practices tier; €750k for EU institutions; SME proportionality), the three enforcing authorities, the Commission's official labelling icons, what changed on 2 August, and where official guidance lives. Commission announcement and press release IP/26/1714, 2 Aug 2026; Commission icons policy page (updated 20 Jul 2026)
/signatories · / Record updated for the application date: the dates card now records the list's 31 July publication and the September task-force launch; a cross-reference to the Commission's official Section 2 labelling icons added; the homepage regulatory record moved from countdown to in-application status in its static text, matching the recorded status change. Commission publications of 20 Jul – 2 Aug 2026
/signatories · / The Count's first number — initial signatory list recorded: the Commission published the initial list on 31 July, inside its stated "in July" window. Section 1 (providers): 83 · Section 2 (deployers): 152 · "about 190 organisations" per the Commission, roughly half of them small and recent companies. The code has been assessed as adequate by the Commission and the AI Board; the list remains open and updates on an ongoing basis, with signatory task forces launching September 2026. Google's announced signing (recorded 28 Jul) is confirmed on the list. Commission announcement and published list, 31 Jul 2026; adequacy assessment opinion
/ · /map · /map-us · /screener In application — Article 50 and California SB 942: the transparency obligations of Reg. (EU) 2024/1689 Art. 50 apply from today — AI-interaction disclosure, machine-readable marking for new systems, emotion-recognition and biometric notices, deepfake and public-interest text labeling — alongside California's AI Transparency Act on the same date. The register's countdown chips became status chips at midnight Brussels time; map statuses updated: European Union — In force; California — In force across recorded instruments. The Art. 50(2) marking grace for systems on the EU market before today runs to 2 Dec 2026. Reg. (EU) 2024/1689; Digital Omnibus on AI; California SB 942
/signatories · /faq Source-page revision observed: the Commission's signing FAQ currently again displays a 22 July deadline under a "Last update: 10 June 2026" stamp; the same page stated 27 July, 18:00 CEST between 17 and 26 July, as this register recorded at the time. Both dates have passed and the list is published; the observation is recorded for the history of the source, not the deadline. digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu signing FAQ (fetched 2 Aug 2026); register correction notice of 17 Jul
/signatories The census — every signatory recorded by name: all 235 section signatures from the Commission's published list (83 in Section 1, 152 in Section 2, with organisations appearing in both sections counted in each) are now recorded in the tracker, names as published, source linked. Additions to the Commission's rolling list will be recorded as dated Count observations and appended. Commission — full list of signatories (published 31 Jul 2026)

28 Jul 2026

/signatories Announced signing recorded — Google: Google publicly announced it is signing the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (company statement, 24 Jul). Recorded as an announcement, distinct from the Commission's initial-signatory list, which remains unpublished as of this entry; the Certian Signatory Count moves only on the Commission's own publications. The signatory window closed 27 Jul, 18:00 CEST. Google public policy blog, 24 Jul 2026; Commission signing FAQ

26 Jul 2026

/faq Entry added — "Was the AI Act delayed?": with the Digital Omnibus deferring high-risk obligations, coverage is producing the impression that the 2 August transparency obligations moved too. They did not. Q.38 records what the Omnibus moved, what it left in place, and what it added — in one dated table. Digital Omnibus on AI (final, Jun 2026); Reg. (EU) 2024/1689

23 Jul 2026

/ Basis upgraded — Digital Omnibus on AI adopted: the regulatory record's citation moves from "provisional agreement (May 2026)" to the final act (Parliament 16 Jun, Council 29 Jun 2026; in force upon Official Journal publication). The recorded dates were already correct and are unchanged: Article 50 applies 2 Aug 2026; the Art. 50(2) marking deferral to 2 Dec 2026 for systems on the EU market before 2 Aug is now adopted law. European Parliament legislative record; Council endorsement 29 Jun 2026
/spec Specification page published: ai-governance.json Draft v0.1 now has an on-domain record — what it is, what it is not, the schema, and the design principles — mirroring the canonical repository. github.com/certian-register/ai-governance-manifest
/faq FAQ expanded 25 → 37: twelve entries added where measured search demand met the record — state disclosure laws (incl. the Colorado impact-assessment repeal that much published guidance still misses), AI insurance questions, and certification definitions. Register entries; ISO filings; scheme documentation

22 Jul 2026

/faq · /signatories Phantom-deadline entries added, on the day itself: with press coverage still citing the superseded 22 July signatory date — including articles published this week — two FAQ entries (Q.24, Q.25) and a dated note on the signatory page now state the confirmed position: initial-signatory deadline 27 July 2026, 18:00 CEST; signing remains open at any time thereafter. The register's correction has stood since 17 July. European Commission — Signing the Code of Practice (FAQ)

21 Jul 2026

/ · /screener · /guides/vendor-ai-questions Basis document finalized: the Commission adopted the final Guidelines on Article 50 transparency obligations on 20 July 2026, eleven days before the obligations apply. Register citations updated from draft to final; the screener's scope treatment (machine-to-machine outputs, closed-loop environments, assistive editing) was checked against the final clarifications and stands. European Commission — Guidelines on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (adopted 20 Jul 2026)

20 Jul 2026

/changelog CorrectionEntry dates corrected: the three entries below were initially recorded under 18 July — the date they were built — but entered the public record on 20 July when deployed. Dates corrected the day the discrepancy was confirmed. Rule adopted: changelog dates record publication, not preparation. Deployment record
ai-governance-manifest Open specification published: ai-governance.json Draft v0.1 — a machine-readable manifest format for an organization's AI governance facts; presence-only, dated, self-hosted, free to implement. Stewarded by Certian, licensed CC BY 4.0, open for comment. [Amended 18 Aug 2026: the words “forever” and any perpetual commitment are withdrawn from this entry, per the entry of 18 Aug 2026. The wording is withdrawn; the practice is unchanged.] github.com/certian-register/ai-governance-manifest
/lexicon Term added: "Screener" — defined as a structured walkthrough surfacing which obligations may warrant professional review; a screening is not a determination. Register usage; the screening/diagnosis distinction as drawn in professional practice
/guides/it-provider-ai-controls Guide #4 published: 13 questions to ask your IT provider about AI controls, with printable PDF — including a stated fair-scope rule: a provider sees what they are paid to manage, and questions outside the agreement call for a scope conversation. Reg. (EU) 2024/1689 Art. 50 · public carrier filings · register map
/guides/ai-governance-consultant Guide #5 published: 13 questions to ask an AI governance consultant, with printable PDF. The vetting standard applies identically to founder-connected listings, as stated on the page. NIST AI RMF · ISO/IEC 42001 · public carrier filings

18 Jul 2026

/signatories The Certian Signatory Count launched — a dated series counting organisations recorded as Code of Practice signatories, opened at pre-publication baseline ahead of the Commission's initial list (expected 27 Jul – 2 Aug). European Commission — Code of Practice publications
/lexicon Lexicon published: the vocabulary of the record defined — five status terms, six checking terms, structural terms. Definitions versioned; changes recorded here rather than applied silently. Register usage as of 18 Jul 2026
/map · /map-us World and US disclosure-law maps published from preview. Dot-matrix jurisdiction panels with citable tables; inclusion policy stated on each page. Korea entry confirmed against an authoritative source before publication. State and national legislative records · Library of Congress, Global Legal Monitor (Korea AI Basic Act, Art. 31)
/guides/vendor-ai-questions Guide #3 published: 14 questions to ask an AI vendor before you sign, with printable PDF. Procurement-side companion to the broker and counsel guides. Reg. (EU) 2024/1689 Art. 50, 53, 101 · Colorado SB 26-189 · California AB 2013, SB 942 · Korea AI Basic Act Art. 31
/guides/counsel-ai-disclosure Colorado entry updated: "in motion" status replaced with the enacted framework — SB 24-205 repealed and reenacted by SB 26-189, effective 1 January 2027, litigation and rulemaking continuing. Colorado SB 26-189 (signed 14 May 2026) · firm analyses of the enacted text

17 Jul 2026

/signatories CorrectionInitial-signatory deadline corrected 22 → 27 July 2026, 18:00 CEST, the day the Commission's updated FAQ confirmed the change. A dated correction notice is displayed on the page. European Commission — Code of Practice FAQ (updated)

16 Jul 2026

/screener Article 50 screener live: two-deadline applicability screening across interaction disclosure, marking, biometric notice, and labelling branches — every branch linked to a primary source. Educational instrument; it records applicability signals, it does not make the call. Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 50 · Commission guidance
/guides Guides hub live with guides #1–2: broker questions on AI exclusions, and counsel questions on AI disclosure laws — both free, ungated, with printable PDFs. Public carrier filings · Reg. (EU) 2024/1689 · state legislative records
/sponsorship Sponsorship policy published: flat fees, identical terms within category, not contingent, certifiers ineligible, founder-connected listings identified. Site policy
/faq Common-questions record expanded from 20 to 23 entries. Primary sources cited per entry

15 Jul 2026

certian.com Register live. Homepage, common-questions record (20 entries), and email capture with double opt-in. Launch
/signatories Code of Practice signatory tracker launched pre-publication — positioned ahead of the Commission's initial signatory list, with the recording template ready. European Commission — Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (final 10 Jun 2026)
A note on speed, for the record: trade coverage published in mid-June continues, as of this entry, to cite the superseded 22 July signatory deadline. This register carried the correction the day the change was confirmed, with a dated notice. That difference — dated, structured records versus prose that cannot stay fresh — is the reason this page exists.

The record is either current or asleep; we assert the former.