Two Witnesses: An evidentiary coalition audit of AI-agent incident disclosure
Michelle Wanjiku Thuo
AI-agent incidents scatter evidence across organizations an agent touches. I built a method for testing, fact by fact, whether one organization’s evidence is enough to establish a safety relevant claim or whether more than one is needed. Applied to 32 facts from two 2026 incidents involving the same developer, a Hugging Face intrusion and an undisclosed wiki misuse, 26 were single stakeholder sufficient. Two facts needed evidence from both organizations when they became public. One, attribution of the Hugging Face intrusion to its developer, is the clearest case. Neither Hugging Face’s disclosure nor the developer’s internal signal alone identified who was responsible then, although the developer’s later account is sufficient today. The other still needs both sides. This demonstrates the method, not that incidents generally need more than one witness or that environment or collective intelligence explains it. The companion tool, Evidence Coalition Explorer, lets readers test all 32 facts.
No reviews are available yet
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Two Witnesses: An evidentiary coalition audit of AI-agent incident disclosure
},
author={
Michelle Wanjiku Thuo
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


