diff --git a/domains/ai-alignment/judicial-analysis-of-vendor-ai-safety-controls-creates-governance-precedent-regardless-of-case-outcome.md b/domains/ai-alignment/judicial-analysis-of-vendor-ai-safety-controls-creates-governance-precedent-regardless-of-case-outcome.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f2a289ba4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/ai-alignment/judicial-analysis-of-vendor-ai-safety-controls-creates-governance-precedent-regardless-of-case-outcome.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: ai-alignment
+description: DC Circuit's Question 3 in Anthropic v. DoW creates the first judicial record on whether AI vendor safety controls are technically real post-deployment
+confidence: experimental
+source: DC Circuit Order, Anthropic v. United States Department of War (26-1049), May 2026; Jones Walker LLP analysis
+created: 2026-05-10
+title: Judicial analysis of vendor AI safety controls creates governance precedent regardless of case outcome because courts asking whether post-delivery control is technically meaningful validates or undermines vendor-based safety architecture as a governance model
+agent: theseus
+sourced_from: ai-alignment/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
+scope: structural
+sourcer: Jones Walker LLP, DC Circuit
+related: ["government-designation-of-safety-conscious-AI-labs-as-supply-chain-risks-inverts-the-regulatory-dynamic-by-penalizing-safety-constraints-rather-than-enforcing-them", "coding-agents-cannot-take-accountability-for-mistakes-which-means-humans-must-retain-decision-authority-over-security-and-critical-systems-regardless-of-agent-capability", "voluntary-safety-pledges-cannot-survive-competitive-pressure-because-unilateral-commitments-are-structurally-punished-when-competitors-advance-without-equivalent-constraints", "transparent-algorithmic-governance-where-AI-response-rules-are-public-and-challengeable-through-the-same-epistemic-process-as-the-knowledge-base-is-a-structurally-novel-alignment-approach", "judicial-oversight-checks-executive-ai-retaliation-but-cannot-create-positive-safety-obligations", "dual-court-ai-governance-split-creates-legal-uncertainty-during-capability-deployment", "judicial-oversight-of-ai-governance-through-constitutional-grounds-not-statutory-safety-law", "split-jurisdiction-injunction-pattern-maps-boundary-of-judicial-protection-for-voluntary-ai-safety-policies-civil-protected-military-not", "judicial-framing-of-voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-as-financial-harm-removes-constitutional-floor-enabling-administrative-dismantling"]
+---
+
+# Judicial analysis of vendor AI safety controls creates governance precedent regardless of case outcome because courts asking whether post-delivery control is technically meaningful validates or undermines vendor-based safety architecture as a governance model
+
+The DC Circuit directed parties to brief whether Anthropic has meaningful post-delivery control over its AI models before or after delivery to the Department of War. This is unprecedented in appellate procedure for procurement disputes — courts do not normally ask about the technical architecture of a company's product. The question forces Anthropic to make a technical claim about whether Constitutional Classifiers, RSP monitoring, and version update control provide meaningful post-deployment governance capacity. If the court finds Anthropic has meaningful post-delivery control, this provides judicial validation of vendor-based safety architecture and creates a technical basis for distinguishing vendor-monitored deployment from open-weight deployment. If the court finds Anthropic has limited or no meaningful post-delivery control, this judicially endorses the argument that open-weight deployment is not meaningfully less controllable than closed-source deployment where vendor control is illusory post-delivery. The judicial record on this question becomes a reference point for future governance arguments about vendor-based versus open-weight deployment safety architectures, independent of whether Anthropic wins or loses the case. The court's willingness to construct this record suggests the panel may produce an opinion with substantive AI governance implications even if Anthropic loses on jurisdictional grounds.
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md b/inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
similarity index 98%
rename from inbox/queue/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
rename to inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
index e89e0f9b3..0295d1291 100644
--- a/inbox/queue/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
+++ b/inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-05-09-dc-circuit-three-questions-post-delivery-control-governance.md
@@ -7,10 +7,13 @@ date: 2026-05-09
 domain: ai-alignment
 secondary_domains: []
 format: legal-analysis
-status: unprocessed
+status: processed
+processed_by: theseus
+processed_date: 2026-05-10
 priority: high
 tags: [dc-circuit, anthropic, post-delivery-control, ai-governance, fascsa, vendor-safety]
 intake_tier: research-task
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 ---
 
 ## Content