# Verification Report: `outputs/ai-governance-brief.md` (follow-up pass)

## Scope
Re-verification focused on whether previously reported **MAJOR** issues were fixed, and on any remaining:
- unsupported claims
- citation mismatches
- logical gaps
- single-source critical claims
- confidence-calibration problems

## Prior MAJOR Issues Status

| Prior MAJOR issue | Status | Evidence in current brief |
|---|---|---|
| Single-study quantitative evidence overgeneralized into field-wide conclusions | **Resolved** | §5.1 and §5.3 now explicitly narrow inference and label single-study limits; Figure 1 caption now states metrics are study-specific and not directly comparable. |
| ISO standards breadth claim lacked matching citations | **Resolved** | §3.3 now cites ISO/IEC 42001, 23894, and 42005 ([10][11][12]). |
| Confidence calibration uneven on high-impact negative claims | **Resolved** | Executive Summary and §§5–7 now use calibrated language (e.g., “moderate confidence,” “single-study indicative evidence,” explicit observability-vs-implementation distinction). |

## Remaining Findings

| Severity | File/Section | Finding | Why it matters | Suggested correction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **MINOR** | `outputs/ai-governance-brief.md` §5.1 heading | Heading says “Governance implementation is often weak even when requirements exist,” but the strongest quantitative support in-body is still one federal setting (carefully qualified in prose). | The body is calibrated; the heading is broader than the immediate evidence base. | Narrow heading to match body calibration (e.g., “Implementation can be weak even when requirements exist” or “Evidence of weak visible implementation in key settings”). |
| **MINOR** | `outputs/ai-governance-brief.md` §5.6 | The “compute/capability thresholds are contested proxies” claim is mostly anchored by one explicit critique source ([31]) plus descriptive frontier-policy docs ([14][15][16]). | Not incorrect, but still somewhat single-source on the critique side. | Optional: add one additional independent critique/modeling source in the same section, or add a brief qualifier (“in at least one major critique”). |

## Overall Assessment
- **FATAL:** None
- **MAJOR:** None remaining from prior pass
- The document is now materially stronger: prior major citation and calibration defects are fixed.
- Remaining issues are **minor calibration/tightness** improvements, not blockers.
