diff --git a/domains/entertainment/community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible.md b/domains/entertainment/community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible.md
index 084e896cd..ba6bf0fd3 100644
--- a/domains/entertainment/community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible.md
+++ b/domains/entertainment/community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible.md
@@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ This advantage compounds with the scarcity economics documented in the media att
 - **Human-made premium unquantified**: The underlying premium itself is still emerging and not yet measured
 - **Selection bias risk**: Communities may form preferentially around human-created content for reasons other than provenance (quality, cultural resonance), confounding causality
 
+
+### Additional Evidence (extend)
+*Source: [[2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
+
+Swift's re-recording strategy demonstrates provenance as competitive advantage within human-made content: by performing re-recorded versions live during the Eras Tour, she shifted streaming consumption to the new masters she controls, creating market-driven value transfer from old masters (owned by former label) to new masters (owned by Swift). The mechanism works because fans can distinguish and prefer the 'Swift-owned' versions, making ownership legible through performance context. This extends the provenance argument from 'human-made vs AI-generated' to 'creator-owned vs label-owned' within human-made content, showing that ownership provenance is legible and valued even when both versions are human-made.
+
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:
diff --git a/domains/entertainment/creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers.md b/domains/entertainment/creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers.md
index 276b289d8..dae2397e9 100644
--- a/domains/entertainment/creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers.md
+++ b/domains/entertainment/creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers.md
@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ This positions Vimeo Streaming as a "Shopify for streaming": infrastructure-as-a
 
 The $430M figure is particularly significant because it represents revenue flowing *to creators* rather than being captured by platforms. This is a structural reversal from the ad-supported social model where platforms capture most of the value from creator audiences.
 
+
+### Additional Evidence (extend)
+*Source: [[2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
+
+Swift's direct theater distribution extends creator-owned infrastructure beyond streaming to theatrical exhibition. The AMC concert film deal (57/43 split) demonstrates that creator-owned distribution infrastructure now operates at theatrical scale, not just digital streaming. This suggests the commercial scale threshold for creator-owned distribution has expanded from streaming platforms to traditional exhibition channels when creators control both IP and audience (100M+ fans in Swift's case). However, this expansion is currently limited to mega-scale creators; replicability at lower scales remains undemonstrated.
+
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:
diff --git a/domains/entertainment/direct-theater-distribution-bypasses-studio-intermediaries-when-creators-control-both-IP-and-audience.md b/domains/entertainment/direct-theater-distribution-bypasses-studio-intermediaries-when-creators-control-both-IP-and-audience.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7394ade44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/entertainment/direct-theater-distribution-bypasses-studio-intermediaries-when-creators-control-both-IP-and-audience.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: entertainment
+description: "Taylor Swift's AMC concert film deal demonstrates direct theater distribution can capture studio-level economics by eliminating the distribution intermediary, but replicability below mega-scale (100M+ fans) remains unproven."
+confidence: experimental
+source: "AInvest analysis of Taylor Swift Eras Tour concert film distribution (2025)"
+created: 2026-03-11
+---
+
+# Direct theater distribution bypasses studio intermediaries when creators control both IP and audience at mega-scale
+
+Taylor Swift's Eras Tour concert film distribution through AMC represents a structural bypass of traditional film studio intermediaries, but only at creator scale above 100M fans. The deal gave Swift a 57/43 revenue split with AMC theaters, capturing the economics that would traditionally flow to a studio distributor. Traditional film distribution deals allocate 40-60% of box office revenue to studios; Swift captured this layer by serving as her own studio.
+
+This bypass was enabled by two preconditions: (1) ownership of the underlying IP (the concert performance and recordings), and (2) a sufficiently large direct audience relationship (100M+ fans) that eliminated the need for studio marketing infrastructure. The concert film generated $4.1B in total Eras Tour revenue, with the film component contributing to a tour that earned 7x her recorded music revenue.
+
+The mechanism demonstrates [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]] — the studio distribution layer's margin migrated to the creator when the creator controlled both the content and the audience relationship.
+
+## Scale Threshold Question (Critical Limitation)
+
+The source provides no evidence of successful direct theater distribution at 100K, 1M, or 10M fan scales. This is the central unanswered question: does this model require Swift's scale or generalize downward? Without comparative data from creators at lower scales, confidence is limited to experimental. The mechanism is proven at mega-scale but replicability remains undemonstrated.
+
+## Evidence
+- Eras Tour concert film distributed directly through AMC partnership with 57/43 revenue split (Swift/AMC)
+- Traditional film distribution deals give studios 40-60% of box office revenue
+- Total Eras Tour revenue: $4.1B (2x any prior concert tour in history)
+- Tour earned 7x recorded music revenue
+- Swift controls master recordings for re-recorded albums and holds 400+ trademarks across 16 jurisdictions
+- No comparable data provided for direct theater distribution at sub-100M fan scales
+
+---
+
+Relevant Notes:
+- [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]]
+- [[media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second]]
+- [[creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers]]
+
+Topics:
+- [[domains/entertainment/_map]]
diff --git a/domains/entertainment/media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second.md b/domains/entertainment/media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second.md
index ccc3d186f..d244e73de 100644
--- a/domains/entertainment/media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second.md	
+++ b/domains/entertainment/media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second.md	
@@ -17,6 +17,12 @@ This two-phase structure is a powerful application of [[when profits disappear a
 
 The two-moat framework has cross-domain implications. In healthcare, distribution (insurance networks, hospital systems) was the first moat to face pressure, while creation (clinical expertise, care delivery) has remained protected. In knowledge work, [[collective intelligence disrupts the knowledge industry not frontier AI labs because the unserved job is collective synthesis with attribution and frontier models are the substrate not the competitor]] describes a similar two-phase dynamic: first distribution of knowledge was democratized (internet/search), now creation of knowledge is being disrupted (AI), and value migrates to synthesis and validation.
 
+
+### Additional Evidence (confirm)
+*Source: [[2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
+
+Swift's direct theater distribution (AMC deal bypassing studios) and re-recording strategy (reclaiming master ownership) demonstrate both phases: (1) distribution moat collapse — direct-to-theater eliminates studio intermediary; (2) creation moat collapse — re-recordings compete with original masters by creating new IP that substitutes for old IP. The tour earned 7x recorded music revenue, showing distribution (live performance + direct film distribution) now dominates creation (recorded music) in value capture. This confirms the sequential phase model: distribution disruption preceded creation disruption.
+
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:
diff --git a/domains/entertainment/re-recordings-as-IP-reclamation-mechanism-refresh-licensing-control-and-stimulate-catalog-consumption.md b/domains/entertainment/re-recordings-as-IP-reclamation-mechanism-refresh-licensing-control-and-stimulate-catalog-consumption.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..04a0735d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/entertainment/re-recordings-as-IP-reclamation-mechanism-refresh-licensing-control-and-stimulate-catalog-consumption.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: entertainment
+description: "Swift's re-recorded albums reclaimed master ownership while refreshing IP rights and driving streaming consumption of new versions through live performance integration."
+confidence: likely
+source: "AInvest analysis of Taylor Swift catalog strategy (2025); WIPO recognition of trademark strategy"
+created: 2026-03-11
+---
+
+# Re-recordings as IP reclamation mechanism refresh licensing control and stimulate catalog consumption
+
+Taylor Swift's re-recording strategy for her first six albums (2023-2024) demonstrates a novel IP reclamation mechanism that simultaneously achieves three objectives: (1) reclaiming master recording ownership from the original label, (2) refreshing copyright and licensing control over the catalog, and (3) stimulating consumption of the re-recorded versions through live performance integration.
+
+The mechanism works by creating new master recordings that compete directly with the original masters in streaming and licensing markets. When Swift performs re-recorded tracks live during the Eras Tour, streaming consumption shifts to the new versions she controls. This creates a market-driven transfer of economic value from the old masters (owned by her former label) to the new masters (owned by Swift).
+
+The strategy has been recognized by WIPO as a model for artist IP protection and has catalyzed industry-wide contract changes, with younger artists now routinely demanding master ownership in initial deals. This suggests the mechanism is structurally replicable across the industry, though the source does not provide evidence of successful replication by other artists at comparable scale.
+
+The re-recording strategy is paired with an aggressive trademark portfolio (400+ trademarks across 16 jurisdictions) that protects the commercial exploitation of the IP beyond just the recordings themselves.
+
+## Evidence
+- Swift reclaimed master recordings for first six albums through re-recording (2023-2024)
+- 400+ trademarks filed across 16 jurisdictions
+- Streaming spikes tied to live performance of re-recorded tracks during Eras Tour
+- WIPO recognized Swift's trademark strategy as model for artist IP protection
+- Industry shift: younger artists now demand master ownership in initial contracts (second-hand evidence via AInvest reporting)
+
+## Mechanism Dynamics
+
+The re-recording mechanism exploits two structural features of music IP:
+1. **Performance rights vs. master rights separation**: Swift retained songwriting rights (performance/composition) but not master recording rights. Re-recording creates new masters while leveraging existing composition rights.
+2. **Consumer preference for canonical versions**: By making the re-recorded versions the "live" versions through tour performance, Swift shifts consumer perception of which version is canonical.
+
+This is distinct from traditional IP reclamation through purchase (buying back masters) because it creates competitive market pressure rather than requiring capital outlay.
+
+---
+
+Relevant Notes:
+- [[community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible]]
+- [[entertainment IP should be treated as a multi-sided platform that enables fan creation rather than a unidirectional broadcast asset]]
+- [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]]
+
+Topics:
+- [[domains/entertainment/_map]]
diff --git a/entities/entertainment/taylor-swift.md b/entities/entertainment/taylor-swift.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c0a33da4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/entities/entertainment/taylor-swift.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+type: entity
+entity_type: person
+name: Taylor Swift
+domain: entertainment
+status: active
+tracked_by: clay
+created: 2026-03-11
+key_metrics:
+  trademark_portfolio: "400+ trademarks across 16 jurisdictions"
+  eras_tour_revenue: "$4.1B total (2x any prior concert tour)"
+  tour_vs_recording_revenue: "7x (tour earned 7x recorded music revenue)"
+  amc_distribution_split: "57/43 (Swift/AMC)"
+---
+
+# Taylor Swift
+
+Taylor Swift is a recording artist who has pioneered creator-owned IP and direct distribution strategies at mega-scale. Her re-recording of her first six albums (2023-2024) to reclaim master ownership and her direct theater distribution deal with AMC for the Eras Tour concert film represent structural innovations in creator control over both content and distribution.
+
+## Timeline
+- **2023-2024** — Reclaimed master recordings for first six albums through re-recording strategy
+- **2023-2024** — Eras Tour generated $4.1B total revenue (2x any prior concert tour in history); tour earned 7x recorded music revenue
+- **2024** — Concert film distributed directly through AMC partnership with 57/43 revenue split (Swift/AMC), bypassing traditional studio distribution
+- **2025** — WIPO recognized Swift's trademark strategy (400+ trademarks across 16 jurisdictions) as model for artist IP protection
+- **2025** — Industry-wide shift: younger artists now routinely demand master ownership in initial contracts, catalyzed by Swift's re-recording precedent
+
+## Relationship to KB
+
+Swift's distribution and IP strategies provide concrete evidence for:
+- [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]] — captured studio distribution margin by eliminating intermediary
+- [[media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second]] — demonstrates both distribution bypass (AMC deal) and creation substitution (re-recordings)
+- [[community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible]] — fans distinguish and prefer Swift-owned re-recordings over label-owned originals
+
+Critical open question: Does Swift's model require her scale (100M+ fans) or does it generalize to smaller creator audiences (100K, 1M, 10M)? No evidence yet for replicability at lower scales.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/inbox/archive/2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership.md b/inbox/archive/2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership.md
index 162b8c420..8e1c8a891 100644
--- a/inbox/archive/2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership.md
+++ b/inbox/archive/2025-05-01-ainvest-taylor-swift-catalog-buyback-ip-ownership.md
@@ -7,9 +7,15 @@ date: 2025-05-01
 domain: entertainment
 secondary_domains: []
 format: article
-status: unprocessed
+status: processed
 priority: medium
 tags: [taylor-swift, ip-ownership, creator-ownership, distribution, live-entertainment]
+processed_by: clay
+processed_date: 2026-03-11
+claims_extracted: ["direct-theater-distribution-bypasses-studio-intermediaries-when-creators-control-both-IP-and-audience.md", "re-recordings-as-IP-reclamation-mechanism-refresh-licensing-control-and-stimulate-catalog-consumption.md"]
+enrichments_applied: ["community-owned-IP-has-structural-advantage-in-human-made-premium-because-provenance-is-inherent-and-legible.md", "media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second.md", "creator-owned-streaming-infrastructure-has-reached-commercial-scale-with-430M-annual-creator-revenue-across-13M-subscribers.md"]
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
+extraction_notes: "Extracted two claims: (1) direct theater distribution as studio bypass mechanism with specific economics (57/43 split), (2) re-recordings as IP reclamation mechanism. Both claims note the critical scale threshold question — Swift's model is proven at 100M+ fans but replicability at smaller scales is undemonstrated. Four enrichments applied to existing claims about value chain profit migration, provenance advantage, media disruption phases, and creator-owned infrastructure. Created Taylor Swift entity page. The 'blueprint' framing in the source title is aspirational rather than evidence-based — no data on replication by other artists at different scales."
 ---
 
 ## Content
@@ -49,3 +55,14 @@ Analysis of Taylor Swift's IP ownership strategy as a blueprint for creator-owne
 PRIMARY CONNECTION: when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits
 WHY ARCHIVED: Proves distribution bypass is possible at mega-scale — the question is whether it generalizes downward to smaller community-owned IPs
 EXTRACTION HINT: The AMC deal specifics (57/43 split, no studio intermediary) are the concrete evidence. The broader narrative about "blueprint" is less extractable than the structural economics.
+
+
+## Key Facts
+- Eras Tour: $4.1B total revenue (2x any prior concert tour in history)
+- Tour earned 7x recorded music revenue
+- AMC concert film deal: 57/43 revenue split (Swift/AMC)
+- Traditional film distribution deals: studios receive 40-60% of box office
+- Swift trademark portfolio: 400+ trademarks across 16 jurisdictions
+- Re-recorded first six albums (2023-2024)
+- WIPO recognized Swift's trademark strategy as model for artist IP protection (2025)
+- Streaming spikes tied to live performance of re-recorded tracks