Primary source
Direct evidence from a participant, original record or originating institution; not an independent truth guarantee.
READING ROOM ↗A transparent reading guide to a small, connected collection. Version 1 · 8 October 2026.
Public entries require a source and a review date. Risks describe pathways to harm; incidents describe documented or attributed historical events; research records describe evidence. Models are version-specific. Regulations retain jurisdiction and applicability caveats.
The starter collection is historical and deliberately small. It does not represent incident prevalence, comparative model safety or an exhaustive watchlist. Records are maintained by the publisher; there is no automated ingestion or monitoring service behind this release.
V1 assigns no probability, confidence or severity scores. A universal rank would conceal differences in evidence, context and affected populations. Each risk instead describes what is known, what is unknown and the key uncertainties.
A relationship is stored once and shown in both directions. Labels explain whether a record develops, involves, examines or addresses another. A regulator can be involved as an authority; that does not mean it caused harm. A regulation-to-risk link is topical context, not a finding of legal applicability.
Event dates, publication dates and review dates are separate. Unknown dates stay unknown; year-only and month-only sources are not converted to invented days. Records reviewed more than six months ago display a review-due notice. Editors supply a public change note with each revision. Private notes and draft revisions remain private.
Labels describe the kind of evidence or contribution. They do not certify correctness. A regulator complaint can be a primary source while its substantive claims remain allegations.
Direct evidence from a participant, original record or originating institution; not an independent truth guarantee.
Documentation issued by the responsible organization. Claims may be self-reported.
A public authority publication. Allegations, findings and guidance remain distinct.
Research whose peer-review status is documented in the citation. Review does not eliminate uncertainty.
Research issued by an institution; peer review is not implied.
A technical report or evaluation; results apply to its stated systems and conditions.
Reporting with named authors and an identifiable editorial publisher; consult the original evidence where possible.
PSYBORG interpretation of cited material, distinguished from the underlying evidence.
Community-produced evidence whose methods and limitations require scrutiny.
An attributed judgment, not an empirical finding.
An expectation about the future, not an observed event.
A possible sequence of events; not an incident that is known to have happened.
A testable proposed explanation that remains to be established.
A possibility with limited support; not an established conclusion.
Intelligence Timeline contains documented historical developments. AI Futures contains speculative capability forecasts and attributed opinions. Neither is a countdown to catastrophe.