Our approach to policy coverage has evolved since we started. Here's what changed and why.
Our practices for covering AI policy developments have shifted meaningfully, and the specific changes are worth naming.
We got more consistent about translating policy into business terms
Early policy coverage sometimes read closer to specialist policy reporting than business-focused coverage. We've worked more deliberately to translate policy developments into their concrete business implications.
We started distinguishing proposed from enacted more clearly
We now flag more explicitly whether a policy development is a proposal, a passed law, or an enforcement action, since these carry very different levels of certainty and readers deserve to know which they're reading about.
We became more international in scope
Early coverage skewed heavily toward US policy developments. We've made a deliberate effort to give more consistent attention to EU, UK, and Asia-Pacific policy developments given how global this beat actually is.
Why we're naming this evolution
Policy coverage that's too US-centric or too vague about a development's actual legal status serves readers poorly, and we think being explicit about how we've corrected for both is worth stating directly.
