When covering a major AI deal, we routinely ask the parties involved for specifics on structure and terms that we know, in most cases, they won't disclose - not because we expect a different answer, but because the manner of the refusal itself is informative in a way that simply not asking never would be.
What a direct request actually reveals
A company that responds to a specific question about deal structure with a clear "we don't disclose specific terms" is behaving consistently with standard confidentiality practice. A company that responds evasively, contradicts its own public statements, or refuses to answer a narrower factual question - like whether a deal is exclusive - without any confidentiality justification is signaling something different, even without disclosing the underlying fact itself.
Why this is worth doing even when we expect no answer
The asking itself creates a documented record and occasionally produces a more specific response than expected, particularly when a company hasn't fully anticipated the question or when internal communications teams aren't perfectly aligned on what's been publicly cleared to discuss.
What we do with a non-answer
We report accurately that specific terms weren't disclosed, rather than filling the gap with speculation, but we also note when a request was made and what the response was, since a company's manner of declining to answer is itself a small, honest piece of information for readers to weigh.
Why this discipline matters over time
Consistently asking, and consistently reporting what happened when we did, builds a track record that makes it easier to notice when a company's usual pattern of disclosure changes - itself sometimes a meaningful signal about a specific deal.