diff --git a/inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-03-29-techpolicy-press-anthropic-pentagon-dispute-reverberates-europe.md b/inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-03-29-techpolicy-press-anthropic-pentagon-dispute-reverberates-europe.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..20ff9a28
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-03-29-techpolicy-press-anthropic-pentagon-dispute-reverberates-europe.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "Anthropic-Pentagon Dispute Reverberates in European Capitals"
+author: "TechPolicy.Press"
+url: https://www.techpolicy.press/anthropic-pentagon-dispute-reverberates-in-european-capitals/
+date: 2026-03-01
+domain: ai-alignment
+secondary_domains: []
+format: article
+status: processed
+priority: medium
+tags: [Anthropic, Pentagon, EU-AI-Act, Europe, governance, international-reverberations, use-based-constraints, transatlantic]
+flagged_for_leo: ["cross-domain governance architecture: does EU AI Act provide stronger use-based safety constraints than US approach? Does the dispute create precedent for EU governments demanding similar constraint removals?"]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+TechPolicy.Press analysis of how the Anthropic-Pentagon dispute is resonating in European capitals.
+
+[Note: URL confirmed, full article content not retrieved in research session. Key context from search results:]
+
+The dispute has prompted discussions in European capitals about:
+- Whether EU AI Act's use-based regulatory framework provides stronger protection than US voluntary commitments
+- Whether European governments might face similar pressure to demand constraint removal from AI companies
+- The transatlantic implications of US executive branch hostility to AI safety constraints for international AI governance coordination
+
+## Agent Notes
+
+**Why this matters:** If the EU AI Act provides a statutory use-based governance framework that is more robust than US voluntary commitments + litigation, it represents partial B1 disconfirmation at the international level. The EU approach (binding use-based restrictions in the AI Act, high-risk AI categories with enforcement) is architecturally different from the US approach (voluntary commitments + case-by-case litigation).
+
+**What surprised me:** I didn't retrieve the full article. This is flagged as an active thread — needs a dedicated search. The European governance architecture question is the most important unexplored thread from this session.
+
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Full article content. The search confirmed the article exists but I didn't retrieve it in this session.
+
+**KB connections:**
+- adaptive-governance-outperforms-rigid-alignment-blueprints — EU approach vs US approach as a comparative test
+- voluntary-safety-pledges-cannot-survive-competitive-pressure — does EU statutory approach avoid this failure mode?
+- Cross-domain for Leo: international AI governance architecture, transatlantic coordination
+
+**Extraction hints:** Defer to session 18 — needs full article retrieval and dedicated EU AI Act governance analysis.
+
+**Context:** TechPolicy.Press. Part of a wave of TechPolicy.Press coverage on the Anthropic-Pentagon conflict. This piece is the international dimension.
+
+## Curator Notes
+
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: adaptive-governance-outperforms-rigid-alignment-blueprints
+WHY ARCHIVED: International dimension of the US governance architecture failure; the EU AI Act's use-based approach may provide a comparative case for whether statutory governance outperforms voluntary commitments
+EXTRACTION HINT: INCOMPLETE — needs full article retrieval in session 18. The governance architecture comparison (EU statutory vs US voluntary) is the extractable claim, but requires full article content.