Corrections Policy
Texas AI Report is committed to accuracy. When we get something wrong, we correct it — promptly and transparently.
Correction Log
- Texas AI Funding Tracker
The "Disclosed capital by sector" table counted two defense companies, Saronic Technologies and Darkhive, under Robotics & Autonomy. Defense Tech was shown as $42M across 2 companies; it is $2.68B across 4. Robotics & Autonomy was shown as $4.27B across 11 companies; it is $1.64B across 9. No company's total changed.
- Does TRAIGA Apply to Your Business? A Scope Guide.
Corrected three statements of law. We said employment and B2B uses were outside TRAIGA's nondiscrimination rule; the intentional-discrimination ban (§ 552.056) applies to any person. We said hospital districts and universities carry no disclosure duty, citing the wrong subsection; the exclusion is from "governmental entity" (§ 552.001(3)), its reach over the disclosure duty is unsettled, and hospital districts still owe the healthcare disclosure. We also removed an unsourced claim about the bill's drafting history.
- What Texas's AI Regulatory Sandbox Offers Builders
A key point said the Attorney General cannot bring enforcement actions while a company participates. The protection covers only laws waived for the test; TRAIGA's own duties cannot be waived (§ 553.051(c)–(e)). We also corrected who oversees participants: DIR, with the Council able to recommend removal.
- Texas, Colorado, and the EU Just Diverged on AI Law. Here's the New Map.
We said a federal court "stayed" Colorado's AI Act. It did not: on a joint motion, the Colorado Attorney General agreed not to begin enforcement, including of SB 26-189, until 14 days after a ruling on xAI's preliminary-injunction motion. We also filled in Colorado's penalty (a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act) and described the NIST defense precisely.
- TRAIGA Compliance Checklist for Texas General Counsel
Corrected the description of the NIST defense: the statute names the AI RMF Generative AI Profile or another recognized framework, and it covers violations discovered through such a review rather than acting as a general safe harbor (§ 552.105(e)). Also updated a stale reference to the complaint mechanism opening in September; it is open.
- TRAIGA Is Six Months Old. No Publicly Reported Enforcement Actions — But the Machinery Is Being Built.
Headline clarified. It said "No Enforcement Actions"; it now says "No Publicly Reported Enforcement Actions." Civil investigative demands are not public by default, so we can report only what has surfaced publicly, as the article itself states.
- TRAIGA Enforcement Watch, August 2026: Still No Publicly Reported Actions
Headline clarified. It said "Still Zero"; it now says "Still No Publicly Reported Actions." We can count only enforcement activity that has surfaced publicly; civil investigative demands are not public by default.
- Texas Enacts One of the Nation's First Comprehensive AI Laws
The summary of prohibited uses said "sole intent to manipulate"; the statute's test for self-harm and criminal activity is whether a system "intentionally aims to incite or encourage" it, and the deepfake ban is limited to sexually explicit deep fakes. The wording now follows the enrolled text. Official sources added.
- Texas Enacts One of the Nation's First Comprehensive AI Laws
This article was previously dated June 22, 2025, the day Gov. Abbott signed HB 149. It was first published on this site on June 26, 2026. The date now shows when we published it, not the date of the event it reports.
- What Texas Companies Get Wrong About TRAIGA Readiness
Described the NIST defense precisely: it covers violations discovered through an internal review that substantially complies with NIST's AI RMF: Generative AI Profile or another recognized framework (§ 552.105(e)), rather than acting as a general safe harbor.
- Does TRAIGA Apply to Your Business? A Scope Guide.
This article described the Texas AG's consumer AI complaint portal as a future obligation with a September 1, 2026 statutory deadline. That mechanism is now live, verified August 31, 2026. The affected passages have been updated.
- Texas, Colorado, and the EU Just Diverged on AI Law. Here's the New Map.
This article stated that EU AI Act high-risk obligations would take effect August 2, 2026. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force July 27, 2026, deferred Annex III high-risk obligations to December 2, 2027 and Annex I to August 2, 2028. Article 50 transparency duties did begin on August 2, 2026. The affected passages have been updated.
- TRAIGA Compliance Checklist for Texas General Counsel
This article described the Texas AG's consumer AI complaint portal as a future obligation with a September 1, 2026 statutory deadline. That mechanism is now live, verified August 31, 2026. The affected passages have been updated.
- TRAIGA Is Six Months Old. No Publicly Reported Enforcement Actions — But the Machinery Is Being Built.
This article described the Texas AG's consumer AI complaint portal as a future obligation with a September 1, 2026 statutory deadline. That mechanism is now live, verified August 31, 2026. The affected passages have been updated.
- What Texas Companies Get Wrong About TRAIGA Readiness
This article originally described the Texas AG's complaint portal as opening by a September 1, 2026 deadline and said "September 1 is nine weeks out." The AG's online AI complaint mechanism is now live, verified August 31, 2026. The affected passages have been updated.
How to Request a Correction
If you believe a published article contains a factual error, please email corrections@texasaireport.com. Include the article URL, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and the source or evidence that supports the correction. We review every request.
How Corrections Are Marked
When a material factual error is confirmed, we update the article and add a correction notice to the top of the affected page, above the article. The notice includes the date of the correction and a plain-language description of what was changed and why, and every notice is also listed in the correction log above. We do not silently edit articles to remove errors; the correction notice remains permanently visible. Corrections to data pages, such as the funding tracker, are marked the same way: a dated notice at the top of the page and an entry in the correction log above.
Minor corrections — such as fixing a typo or a broken link — may be made without a formal correction notice at editorial discretion.
Scope
This policy covers factual claims in news articles and analysis. It does not cover matters of editorial opinion or interpretation. If you have a substantive disagreement with our analysis, we welcome letters to the editor at editor@texasaireport.com.