MAP COLLECTION
Topic maps
Follow a funding route, a policy decision or a chain of restrictions. Choose a diagram below, or explore the whole network.
Open network map
Explore all 1,209 subjects and 1,900 recorded relationships. Search for a name, focus its neighbourhood, then follow the connections.
AI policy & political power
AI, money & persuasion
MIRI: money and institutional responsibility
Follow historical donor support into the institution, then distinguish its leadership roles.
Open diagram →Yudkowsky: writing, audiences and political access
Follow adaptations, book promotion and the documented Sanders briefing.
Open diagram →The Sabine approach: sponsor, account and campaign
ControlAI identifies itself; the two accounts dispute editorial demands.
Open diagram →Rohan Paul: sponsorship and distribution
Separate disclosed commercial placements from the people and stories Paul circulates.
Open diagram →Tallinn: funding routes and decision rights
Follow donor payments into ControlAI, grant allocation and AI-policy organizations.
Open diagram →How pooled funding reaches media
A named fund manager, a charitable account, a fellowship and a documented film grant.
Open diagram →Policy drafting and organized public pressure
Compare a documented route into government guidance with PauseAI’s declared division of labor.
Open diagram →Lightcone: loans and future-donation offsets
Two financing arrangements explain obligations that a donor list alone would miss.
Open diagram →Civic Shout: the business of advocacy
Civic Shout sells supporters and traffic, recruits coalition participants and rewards distribution through distinct credit and cash programs. A public filing identifies a political purchaser; a charitable project offers another route into audience-building.
Open diagram →Palantir: contracts and control
Founder votes, purchasing power and AI distribution create different forms of authority around Karp's company.
Open diagram →Funding policy work and organizing
Multi-year philanthropy supports policy capacity; recurring organizing support has its own published conditions.
Open diagram →AI, capital & policy
Rules & government
ControlAI’s US lobbying operation
Reported spending, professional roles and the UK-US disclosure link show the machinery behind congressional advocacy.
Open diagram →California: who qualifies the AI auditors?
California has moved from a proposal to enacted rules for the organizations that assess AI. SB813 gives GovOps responsibility for qualifying independent verifiers, with criteria due by January2028. AB1405 adds a registry and, from January2029, restricts who may sell covered audits. They establish standards for the assessors; SB813 expressly preserves operation without purchasing this verification service.
Open diagram →AI ownership and board power — proposals
Compare El-Sayed’s proposed public board majority with Sanders’s proposed equity fund and commission.
Open diagram →METR: funding, access and policy
Follow grants, lab access, people and public-sector work around the evaluator.
Open diagram →Gates, Anthropic and public-service AI
Follow the joint programme and its institutional connections.
Open diagram →The Pro-Human coalition: declaration to assembly
Follow endorsements, the March announcement and the advertised September event.
Open diagram →UK AI oversight: from recommendation to proposed powers
Follow the committee report to two proposed sets of decision rights.
Open diagram →SV Angel: the declared route to policy access
Follow an appointment, an initiative and its leadership mandate.
Open diagram →AI research & security
BASI: money, research and lab access
Follow Pliny’s grant, reported contracts and the personnel links into credited frontier-lab testing.
Open diagram →BT6: people, projects and professional work
The collective’s public roster connects to tools, publications, a bug-bounty program and a vendor challenge.
Open diagram →Resources & divergence
Oak’s grants to five organisations
Oak reports three-year support to these five recipients. Each amount belongs to its own grant year and purpose. The arrows have equal weight; they do not measure financial influence.
Open diagram →Where Oak-funded organisations disagree
Statewatch endorsed a CSA objection and an OSA safeguards letter. The WeProtect Secretariat supported the CSA initiative with safeguards. DFF separately reports funding Liberty’s TCN challenge.
Open diagram →Who selects and authorises grants
Named grants establish resources; KR’s statutes establish internal selection and appointment rights. CMA’s two funding charts describe a changed mix without explaining its cause.
Open diagram →Requests & dispositions
Check My Ads: requests and responses
CMA asks for creator/advertiser checks, platform review before monetization and sanctions. Its crisis revenue/refund proposal has an explicit regulator response: specific monetization practices were not recommended.
Open diagram →Full Fact: requested access and official responses
Full Fact seeks broader crisis scope, meaningful data access for accredited fact-checkers and stronger supervision. Ofcom retains a narrower formal channel and declines central coordination and routine submission of every analysis.
Open diagram →How Full Fact’s input changed a notice indicator
Ofcom attributes the notice-indicator amendment to Full Fact’s response and questions at an earlier DSIT meeting. Its FOI answer separately reports initial planning and a May 2026 approval window.
Open diagram →Authority & records
Ministers, Ofcom and crisis notices
Section 175 gives the Secretary a direction route through Ofcom. A notice can require a public statement and information. The provider’s criteria-based crisis determination remains a separate decision.
Open diagram →Who acts on a crisis—and who records it
Signals inform the provider, which determines activation and assembles its team. Large services have a specific police-channel recommendation. Providers retain analyses; Ofcom can seek them.
Open diagram →From published code to legal effect
The crisis statement was published in June and children-code amendments were laid. Their source record does not resolve final crisis commencement. September’s NCII announcement supplies a different measure’s date.
Open diagram →Advertising lists
From evidence to police and advertiser decisions
Operation Creative separates rightsholder referrals, police assessment and distribution to advertising recipients. Operators can challenge action; police removal has a stated evidential condition.
Open diagram →International sharing of advertising warnings
WIPO ALERT carries national assessments to approved advertising users. Contributors retain responsibilities and access choices; users choose which lists to use. Review begins in the relevant national process.
Open diagram →Classifications, licences and business decisions
White Bullet describes an official-list index and a separate proprietary risk index. Peer39 markets an exclusion offering. Gambling Commission duties give a distinct contractual route for licensees.
Open diagram →Payment restrictions
How merchant records affect payment access
Acquirers report qualifying terminations; authorized users must inquire. Mastercard permits admission of a listed merchant, while Stripe publishes a more restrictive practice with exceptions. Correction is a distinct route.
Open diagram →How notices reach payment companies
The proposed process carries authorized claims through WIPO formalities to payment providers. WIPO reports a manual pilot; its programme separately plans deployment.
Open diagram →Court challenges and the limits of restoration
eGumball sought emergency delisting relief. The 2023 appeal reversed that provisional relief; the 2025 appeal rejected anti-SLAPP protection at its first step. FilmOn supplied an expressly applied legal framework.
Open diagram →Standards pressure
Political pressure and three different responses
Adalytics research and CMA’s claimed advocacy precede the February 2025 requests to DV, MRC and TAG. TAG reports no investigated BSC violations; DV disputes interpretation and reports additional safeguards.
Open diagram →How outside reports become vendor policy
DV describes selecting public NCMEC material, conducting further assessment and introducing a Highly Illicit category. IWF’s assessed URL input is separate from DV’s membership and contribution band.
Open diagram →Preservation requests and legal counterpressure
DV Holdings’ counsel issued a preservation demand, and CMA publicly objected. The later complaint names both DV legal entities as plaintiffs and Adalytics as defendant; it separately alleges coordination with CMA.
Open diagram →Earlier research
Grant resources & selection
Oak’s grants to GDI and rights organisations
Oak’s 2023 report records four three-year awards. Each arrow retains its own amount and purpose. No grant is allocated to the later complaint or a named classification decision.
Open diagram →Who chooses Digital Freedom Fund projects
DFF describes staged 2025 selection rounds, March 2026 board adoption and peer selection of the June round. Staff and the published terms support that process.
Open diagram →GDI: public grants and EU research funding
FCDO reports support to the named GDI operation. The Commission records AI4TRUST project funding and a contribution for its German participant. These are two documented channels.
Open diagram →Research inputs & evaluation
From research terms to classification decisions
GDI contributed existing keyword resources; FBK edited D2.1 and recorded internal coordinator review. The document’s sampling and methodological choices are inspectable.
Open diagram →Test scores versus real-world results
AI4TRUST reports a final warning system, a textual component, a human-validation dashboard and user evaluation. Each finding belongs to its stated component and test.
Open diagram →Distribution, exits & review
GDI’s advertising relationships—and their endings
The historical Oracle segment and IAS input connect GDI ratings to buyer choices. Both named intermediaries later announced exits from the relevant service or input.
Open diagram →How an advertising classification can be challenged
GDI describes publisher rating appeals and reassessment. Its UK operator’s policy separately offers qualified consideration of concerns about research outputs.
Open diagram →Apple, Liberty and a partly private court case
Liberty and Privacy International filed a separate complaint and submitted arguments. The tribunal denied concealment of basic Apple case details while keeping the March hearing private.
Open diagram →Researcher access decisions
Who can access platform data
The provider-establishment DSC decides project vetting and request conditions. The researcher supplies eligibility and funding information; providers have a bounded amendment route.
Open diagram →Who pays and who supervises AliExpress’s trustee
AliExpress must fund the trustee; the Commission approved Ankura and controls its mandate. QA and monitoring reports should travel back through specified channels.
Open diagram →A positive audit and no approved requests
FTI’s 2024/25 audit concluded positively on readiness, reported zero approvals and found the inspected applications incomplete or invalid. A later voluntary tracker provides a separate, unmatched account.
Open diagram →Assurance versus results
Who commissioned the £656,000 evaluation
The released CDDP material identifies Oliver Wyman and a £656,000 ex-VAT price. Payment depends on satisfactory deliverables; a later phase has an intended Treasury approval gate.
Open diagram →From safety prototypes to reused evaluation methods
DCMS appointed PA for OSDI assurance. PUBLIC reports prototype testing and later credits OSDI practices in a separate STCF evaluation. A dated expert group supplied advice.
Open diagram →The main branches
AI foundations & creators
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →Industry & electoral advocacy
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →Digital-rights policy & funders
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →ControlAI & political access
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →Content & payment campaigns
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →Regulators, alliances & trials
Follow the named relationships between the main participants in this part of the investigation.
Open diagram →