Governance

Non-adjudicatory stance

CAIM is not a legal adjudicator. It does not determine wrongdoing, liability, or compliance. Its records describe what happened, based on available evidence, and what mitigations appear relevant. Organizations named in records are not being accused of wrongdoing — they are being documented as part of events that the public interest requires understanding.

Editorial roles and standards

CAIM's editorial process involves four functions, which may be held by a small team:

• Intake editor: triages submissions, checks scope and nexus, handles de-duplication.
• Verification editor: evaluates source quality, builds the factual narrative, assigns the verification status.
• Safety reviewer: makes redaction decisions and manages coordinated disclosure for security-sensitive or privacy-sensitive cases.
• Release manager: handles publication, versioning, changelog integrity, and the corrections workflow.

No record is published without editorial and safety review. Publication decisions are documented and auditable.

Editorial policy

CAIM publishes records that are:

• In scope: material AI involvement and a Canada nexus
• Well-sourced: supported by credible, cited sources
• Prevention-relevant: informative for understanding and reducing AI-related risks
• Responsibly framed: cautious in language, clear about uncertainty, and protective of privacy

CAIM does not optimize for volume. It prioritizes quality and usefulness over comprehensive coverage.

Conflicts of interest

CAIM maintains a public conflicts-of-interest policy:

• All editorial staff and advisory members disclose relevant affiliations, funding relationships, and material interests
• No one approves publication of a record in which they have a material conflict
• Recusal procedures are documented and followed
• Conflict disclosures are updated annually and available on request

Corrections and appeals

CAIM's correction process is designed to be prompt, transparent, and fair.

Corrections: If a record contains a material factual error, CAIM corrects it as soon as the error is identified. The correction is visible in the record's changelog, with an explanation of what changed and why.

Appeals: Anyone may request a review of a record's factual accuracy or responsible-publication practices. Appeals are assessed against CAIM's published editorial standards. Possible outcomes include:

• Edit: the record is updated to correct an error or add context
• Relabel: the verification status is changed to reflect new information
• Retract: the record is withdrawn, with an explanation and preserved tombstone metadata

Appeals focus on factual accuracy and responsible publication. CAIM does not adjudicate disputes over framing or opinion.

Process: Correction requests are acknowledged within five business days. Substantive responses — including any changes or a reasoned explanation for no change — are provided within fifteen business days. Complex cases may take longer, with the requester informed of the timeline.

Advisory function

CAIM is assembling a cross-sector, bilingual advisory function. Advisors will be selected for relevant expertise — AI systems, journalism, law, public policy, privacy, cybersecurity, civil society — and for diversity of perspective.

The advisory function will:

• Supports methodological integrity and taxonomy development
• Provides feedback on responsible publication practices
• Reviews whether CAIM's processes remain credible and fair

Advisors do not have veto power over publication decisions. Editorial independence is protected by the conflicts-of-interest policy and by clear separation between advisory input and editorial authority.

Advisor conflict disclosures are public.

Transparency reporting

As operational volume grows, CAIM will publish periodic transparency reports. These will include aggregate statistics on:

• Volume of submissions received
• Publication rates (proportion of submissions that become records)
• Average time from intake to publication
• Correction and retraction counts
• Redaction and coordinated disclosure statistics
• Appeals received and outcomes

Transparency reports will not compromise the identity of confidential reporters or the details of sensitive submissions.

Independence and durability

CAIM is designed for long-term independence:

• Funding sources are disclosed publicly
• No single funder, organization, or government body has editorial control
• Editorial standards and governance policies are published and versioned
• The monitor's design, standards, and data formats support adoption by public institutions

CAIM's goal is to build trust through consistent practice and serve the Canadian public interest over time.

CAIM's schema, taxonomy, methodology, and governance policies are published and versioned, enabling public scrutiny.