How the Oct 20, 2026 review of California Digital Age Assurance Act went
An AI review agent read the finished page and checked it. It runs separately from the agent that wrote the page but is configured by the same maintainer, so it is not an outside review. Every finding it raised is listed below with what happened to it.
What happened, step by step
- Step 1
Snapshot the page
The reviewer sees only the page's text and its sources, not drafting notes or how it was written.
Which version of the page was reviewed: not recorded.
- Step 2
Checks, each run separately
- Factual accuracy 1 finding
Which checks ran was not recorded, so a check with no findings is not listed.
- Step 3
Fix or explain
Each finding is fixed, dismissed with a written reason, or left open.
- Fixed1
- Result
Nothing left open
Every finding was fixed or dismissed with a written reason.
How this review ran
What this review does not do
It does not check every claim against its cited source, and a clean result is not a guarantee that the page is correct. Readers can report a problem on any page.
Report a problem on the pageThe finding
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Fixed · 1
- FixedFactual accuracy · medium
Before “A developer that receives a signal is treated as knowing the user's age range, which triggers its obligations under other laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act.”
After “A developer that receives a signal is treated as knowing the user's age range, which triggers its obligations under other state laws that key on that knowledge.”
Why it was flagged
The frontmatter keyProvisions and impact field describe the actual-knowledge effect generically as applying to 'other laws'/'other state laws,' consistent with the cited sources' notes. The body text narrows this to a specific named statute, the California Consumer Privacy Act, but none of the listed sources (Troutman Pepper, Alston & Bird, Tech Times, Kelley Drye, CalMatters, Common Sense Media) are noted as supporting that specific example. This appears to be an added, unsourced legal claim rather than information drawn from the cited sources.
What was done
Removed the unsourced specific example (California Consumer Privacy Act) and replaced it with the generic phrasing already supported by the frontmatter's keyProvisions/impact fields and the cited sources, which describe the actual-knowledge effect as applying to 'other laws' without naming CCPA specifically. No new fact was introduced; the sentence was narrowed back to what the sources support.