Citation and disclaimer

How to cite

Suggested citation (APA style)

Anonymous author. (2026). Entry title. Comparative AI. Retrieved YYYY-MM-DD, from https://comparativeai.org/path

Chinese academic format

Comparative AI. 《Entry title》[EB/OL]. (accessed YYYY-MM-DD). https://comparativeai.org/path

Always include

The access date. Content on the site is updated on an ongoing basis; cite the specific version you read.
The “last updated” stamp at the foot of the page. This is the Git commit time and functions as a version marker.
If you are citing a boundary case or a contested classification (for example, our treatment of Chinese mandatory national standards as soft law), please also footnote our Methodology §2.

Disclaimers

1. The site is not legal advice

The contents of the site are a personal academic compilation and do not constitute legal advice, compliance consulting, or regulatory interpretation of any kind. For any specific compliance question, please consult a licensed attorney or legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

2. Not the position of any institution

The author’s day job has no direct connection to the contents of this site. The site is a personal research project and does not represent, act on behalf of, or reflect the views of the author’s employer, collaborators, or any third party.

3. Treatment of corporate policy

Summaries and archives of Usage Policies, Safety Frameworks, and other corporate documents:

draw only on documents the company has publicly released;
carry explicit snapshot_date markers and do not claim to reflect the present state;
avoid evaluative framing (no “inadequate”, “should be strengthened”, and so on);
if a company considers any description inaccurate, please open a GitHub Issue and we will correct it.

4. Treatment of legal text

The original text is authoritative in every case. Translations are aids to reading, not substitutes.
Uncorrected machine translation is not published.
AI-assisted translations are explicitly marked.

5. Timeliness

The legal environment evolves quickly. Effective dates, amendment status, and enforcement cases may all lag behind.
If you spot outdated information, please flag it via an Issue; you will be credited in the next update.

Complaints and correction requests

If you are:

An official issuing body for a legal text and consider our translation or summary inaccurate — please file an Issue on GitHub with the original-text reference for cross-checking.
A company whose policy is described and consider the description inaccurate — same channel; we will prioritise the review and respond within seven days.
A researcher who has found an error or would like to contribute material — Issues and PRs are welcome.

Licensing

Content (all original text on the site): CC BY 4.0 — may be redistributed and cited with attribution.
Code (the site’s Astro templates, styling, and configuration): MIT.
Primary legal text quoted on the site: copyright belongs to the respective official bodies; the site’s use is within the bounds of fair use (quotation and excerpt).
Corporate documents quoted on the site: copyright belongs to the respective companies; the site archives and summarises.

Boundary-case register

The following items have a contested hard-law / soft-law classification in the scholarly or practical literature. The site’s treatment is logged here, and any new boundary case encountered will be added.

Item	Our classification	Contested point	Our reasoning
Chinese mandatory national standards (GB)	Soft law	Mandatory national standards have legal force; some scholars argue they should be classified as hard law	To keep source-of-promulgation consistent across jurisdictions (“issued by a legislature / administrative body” vs. “issued by a standards body”), we place all standards on the soft-law side and flag their mandatory character in the specific entry
NIST AI RMF	Soft law	Cited extensively by federal agencies and regulators, with de facto binding force	Fundamentally a voluntary framework with no consequence for non-compliance
EU GPAI Code of Practice	Soft law	Signing triggers a conformity presumption	Signing remains voluntary; non-signing does not constitute a breach
US executive orders	Hard law	Bind only the executive branch; revocable by the next president	They are genuinely binding on the executive branch; classified as hard law but with the scope of effect noted

For any new boundary case, we will discuss on GitHub Issues before merging a decision.