Chain of Custody for a Machine Decision

Evidence that cannot prove its own handling is no evidence at all. The same is becoming true of artificial intelligence decisions. This essay applies forensic chain of custody to machine actions and lands on the signed, tamper-evident, offline-verifiable record as the difference between a log and admissible proof.

Hybridmind42 (@hybridmind42)

What if systems don’t fail because they’re weak… but because their boundaries are wrong? I’ve just published the Master Index for the HybridMind42 series. It’s a guided map across everything explored so far: – why systems persist (or don’t) – how failure actually occurs – and why “selection” isn’t a process, but a result of constraint At the core is a simple shift: Persistence is not generated. It is permitted. From physics and biology to engineering and AI, the same structure keeps appearing: state → constraint → resolution → persistence This post isn’t a paper—it’s the front door. If you’re new, there’s a path in. If you’ve been following, this is the map. 🌿🏛️

Breach of a standstill agreement does not affect jurisdiction or admissibility

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_454/2023 Decision of 18 December 2024 (ORD_598508/2023[1]) The claimants sought revocation of EP 2196231, belonging to the defendant, before the UPC Central Division in Paris. The patentee raised a preliminary objection to the action. It argued that according to a standstill agreement between t...

National or UPC jurisdiction for damages?

Mock Admissibility Hearing | OSR4Rights

Putting Principles into Practice: Mock Admissibility Hearing on Open Source Evidence Digital open source information can provide vital inform...