Source Notes / Claim Notes

This page records the public claim posture for VS006. It distinguishes source-supported claims, DFEI diagnostic synthesis, Table reasoning, and watchlist material.

Strong / Safe Claims

• A human in the loop is not automatically meaningful control.
• Human review can be weakened by lack of context, timing, authority, visibility, refusal power, or repair path.
• Removing a weak human checkpoint does not automatically create accountability.
• Contestability requires more than explanation; it needs a reachable path to challenge, reversal, amendment, repair, or ownership.

Use With Framing

• Human-in-the-loop language can function as an accountability signal even when the workflow gives the human little consequence-changing authority.
• Institutions may preserve visible human responsibility while relocating practical control into systems.
• Provenance, watermarking, and audit trails can support trust, but they do not replace recourse or contestability.

Restricted / Avoid

• Do not claim all human review is theater.
• Do not claim all automation removal is capture.
• Do not imply bad faith, deception, fraud, or legal liability without evidence.
• Do not use “alibi” language outside the approved Editor’s Note phrase and exact Table transcript/archive context unless separately approved.

Evidence Lanes

VS006 draws on human factors, automation bias, out-of-the-loop performance, work-systems history, accountability, contestability, and AI governance as support lanes. The Table remains a reasoning archive, not a standalone evidence source.