The public record now contains one specific creator-disclosed, grant-supported output and a clearer distinction between three operating forms: grants with a stated independence condition, a jointly acknowledged advocacy collaboration, and vendor production under prior approval. The signed instruments, payment entries and Sabine's original offer remain holder records. No outreach, signup, paid access or publication was undertaken.
Specific funded output: Future Tense / Mateus
Frame links its named fellow Mateus De Souza to [The Dark Philosophy Driving AI Development](http[local research file] published 8 May 2026 by Future Tense. The original public YouTube description explicitly acknowledges production grant funding from BlueDot Impact, Frame Fellowship and Future of Life Institute. It states that the funders had no editorial control and the opinions are the creator's own.
This is a new firsthand creator record for one actual published output, beyond Frame's own success story that Mateus secured FLI support. The two are separate speakers, though both have interests in the programme. The creator's description establishes its public acknowledgment and independence claim; it does not independently verify payment, amount, recipient legal entity, a contractual clause, the absence of informal feedback, or which FLI programme supplied the grant. Do not call the three support edges three independent confirmations: they all come from one description. The description as captured today may have changed after publication; no historical description version was recovered.
Raw public HTML is creator-mateus.html; the precise extracted description and publication metadata are creator-mateus-metadata.json. creator-capture-receipts.json preserves URL, capture time, hash and bytes for this and other captures. The useful next records are the grant letter(s), named recipient, milestones/renewal terms, payment entry and any revisions for this specific video. Holders are the creator and the relevant FLI/Frame/BlueDot administrators. A public donor award entry could corroborate amount and legal identity, but no new broad funding hunt was launched.
Frame now names lead funders and selection boundaries
The [Frame homepage](http[local research file] supplies its public FAQ dynamically through the linked [frontend asset index-CUMxxB1e.js](http[local research file] Reading that delivered public content recovered a consequential answer omitted by the static-page text reader: Frame names Long Term Future Fund and AI Safety Tactical Opportunities Fund as its lead funders. It says funders do not select fellows or influence their content, conclusions or framing.
This is an organisation's disclosure, with no amount, award date, agreement, precise grant-making legal entity or donor-side corroboration. It improves the upstream lead while also preserving the explicit contrary evidence to a donor-editorial-control hypothesis. The live FAQ provides no fiscal-sponsor or legal contracting answer; Mox/Manifund contextual ties cannot fill that gap.
The FAQ says selection evaluates storytelling, niche ownership, clarity and commitment to communication; published work is an important signal. Frame may place applicants in a different track. It describes the stipend as a private nonprofit grant for educational participation and warns that exceptional tailored offers may omit it. Programme deliverables focus on AI; the rest of a creator's channel need not. These are current programme terms, not an executed placement contract. The independent-track promise and amplifier-track institutional brief remain distinct. September 7 is the announced new cohort start, not evidence that its work has already been delivered.
Raw delivered script: creator-frame-public-ui-script.txt. The small creator-frame-faq-extract.json contains 23 question/answer pairs and exact source offsets. It was produced by reading public string literals, without executing code or accessing a private endpoint. Same website/source family; the script is not independent evidence. Holders for the next grant/selection/placement instruments are Frame operations and the named fund administrators. No fresh donor tree was pursued.
A completed ControlAI collaboration is acknowledged on both sides
Neither source names the paying legal entity, fee, contractual script veto, acceptance process or actual payment. A partnership label alone does not make it paid. The original agreement and accepted brief should be sought from Rational Animations and ControlAI's partnerships/finance holders. Keep the brand ControlAI separate from the unresolved UK/US contracting selection. Captures are creator-rational.txt, creator-rational-metadata.json, and creator-controlai-rational.html.
The inspected SciShow video of 31 October 2025 likewise names ControlAI and its lawmaker tool in its description. The Hey AI video linked by Frame does not name CAIS in the inspected description, but Frame's claim of a CAIS contract does not establish this particular video was the contract output. Neither an absent description reference nor absent paid-promotion metadata proves a disclosure violation. Those narrower checks are preserved as boundary findings, not accusations.
Closest public commission terms: People First
People First's current general terms.
Sections 1–2 place deliverables and price in the SOW, permit Company/Advertiser review and revisions, and require approvals before publication. Sections 4–6 require disclosure compliance and make payment conditional on completed compliant work and evidence of publication. Section 6 names Dots as the platform payout provider, with multiple payout methods; this proves no particular campaign disbursement. Sections 9–10 retain creator ownership while licensing organic reuse and, subject to SOW limits, paid amplification. These are current general permissions and conditions, not evidence that a right was exercised against a named creator. They are also not the terms of the separate FLI Digital Media Accelerator.
The actual decision record is a particular accepted SOW, its dated incorporated terms, accepted brief, revision/approval log, invoice/settlement and live post. Holders are People First, the selected creator and actual advertiser-side contract holder. Dots may know payout, not editorial approval. There is no evidentiary link from this named platform provider to the unidentified bank in the separate games-payment workstream.
Sabine offer route closed on a named holder gap
The original [YouTube publication](http[local research file] dated 5 September 2026, was recovered as public HTML after the web tool could not fetch it. Its description supplies no offer sender or correspondence. It links her Patreon/Substack transcripts. The public Patreon sitemap identifies [post 168573904](http[local research file] but the web fetch failed and one direct public fallback returned 403. That route was stopped. Exact-title and sender searches yielded commentary/mirrors, not original offer correspondence; none was promoted to evidence.
Her own rejected offer remains unnamed. In the supplied transcript, her account of another creator's screenshot mentioning CAIS is a separate statement. A causal arrow from any named NGO to her offer remains unsupported. The next record is her original email thread with dates, sender domain, attachments, proposed wording/references, fee and disclosure terms; Sabine and the sender are its holders. Reopen on release or supplied correspondence, without further identity guessing.
Candidate nodes, typed relations, source ancestry, current-versus-publication-date limits and holder records are in creator-candidate.json. The bounded route is complete: public outputs and closest public terms acquired; original offer, executed contracts, payment proof and exercised approvals remain expressly unresolved.