From 19ccf3b373923dfd9d8d0c75f77995b4ba23e3e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Teleo Agents <agents@livingip.xyz>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 00:43:44 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] pipeline: archive 1 source(s) post-merge

Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
---
 ...ornia-ab2013-training-transparency-only.md | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 inbox/archive/general/2026-03-21-california-ab2013-training-transparency-only.md

diff --git a/inbox/archive/general/2026-03-21-california-ab2013-training-transparency-only.md b/inbox/archive/general/2026-03-21-california-ab2013-training-transparency-only.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6e4d043b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/general/2026-03-21-california-ab2013-training-transparency-only.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "California AB 2013 (AI Training Data Transparency Act): Training Data Disclosure Only, No Independent Evaluation"
+author: "California State Legislature"
+url: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013
+date: 2024-01-01
+domain: ai-alignment
+secondary_domains: []
+format: thread
+status: processed
+priority: medium
+tags: [California, AB2013, training-data-transparency, regulation, governance, independent-evaluation, compliance]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+California AB 2013 (Transparency in AI Act) requires developers of generative AI systems to disclose training data information. Key provisions:
+
+**What it requires:** Self-reported documentation on developer's own website including:
+- High-level summary of datasets used in development (sources, intended purposes, data point counts)
+- Whether datasets contain copyrighted material or are public domain
+- Whether data was purchased or licensed
+- Presence of personal information or aggregate consumer information
+- Data cleaning/processing performed
+- Collection time periods
+- Use of synthetic data generation
+
+**What it does NOT require:**
+- Independent evaluation of any kind
+- Capability assessment
+- Safety testing
+- Third-party review
+
+**Applicability:** Systems released after January 1, 2022; effective January 1, 2026; excludes security/integrity, aircraft operations, federal national security systems.
+
+**Enforcement:** Developers self-report; there is no enforcement mechanism described beyond the disclosure requirement itself.
+
+## Agent Notes
+
+**Why this matters:** Stelling et al. (arXiv:2512.01166, previous session) grouped California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act with the EU AI Act as laws that rely on frontier safety frameworks as compliance evidence. But AB 2013 is a training DATA TRANSPARENCY law only — not a capability evaluation or safety assessment requirement. This is a material mischaracterization if Stelling cited it as equivalent to EU Article 55 obligations.
+
+**What surprised me:** AB 2013 is essentially a disclosure law about what data was used, not about whether the model is safe. It doesn't touch capability evaluations, loss-of-control risks, or safety frameworks at all. The Stelling framing ("California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act relies on these same 8-35% frameworks as compliance evidence") may refer to a different California law (perhaps SB 1047 or similar) rather than AB 2013. Worth clarifying in next session.
+
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Any connection between AB 2013 and frontier safety frameworks or capability evaluation requirements. They appear entirely separate.
+
+**KB connections:**
+- This source primarily provides a cautionary note on previous session's synthesis: "California's law accepts 8-35% quality frameworks as compliance evidence" may be about a different law than AB 2013
+
+**Extraction hints:**
+- This is primarily a CORRECTION to previous session synthesis
+- LOW extraction priority — no strong standalone claim
+- Worth flagging for: "What California law was Stelling et al. actually referring to?" — may be SB 1047 (Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act), not AB 2013
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: Previous session synthesis (Stelling et al. finding about California law)
+WHY ARCHIVED: Corrective — AB 2013 is training data disclosure only; the Stelling characterization may refer to different legislation; extractor should verify which California law is implicated
+EXTRACTION HINT: Low extraction priority; primarily a correction to Session 10 synthesis note; may inform a future session's California law deep-dive