Jurisdiction and Source Coverage: What an Assessment Does and Does Not Cover

No blanket jurisdiction promise

This page does not publish an independently verified, exhaustive jurisdiction inventory. A domain name or a worldwide deployment description does not establish that every applicable jurisdiction is covered. Use the sources and coverage returned for your particular assessment, and ask Carver for confirmation before relying on coverage of a named law or territory.

The public sample includes New York insurance guidance. That demonstrates a source set considered by that historical example; it is not a statement that New York law is completely covered, or that every Carver assessment includes that source set.

Four different coverage questions

Question	Where to look	Interpretation
Which sources were considered?	Returned acts, source URLs, and jurisdiction labels	A source was included in this result; verify the cited provision
Were all matching obligations assessed?	Coverage counts, completeness flags, trimmed counts, and partial state	Missing or capped results must be disclosed
Which agent capabilities were addressed?	Capability coverage and reported gaps in the web assessment	A capability with no traced obligation still needs investigation
Are the sources current?	Source publication history and any law_current_as_of value	A date field alone does not validate amendments, repeal, or interpretation

get_ai_agent returns a coverage object and law_current_as_of when present. Use the actual response rather than assuming values. list_agent_acts may be trimmed by the current plan. Paginated obligations can also be plan-limited. Exhausting a page sequence means you read the available result set, not necessarily the entire regulatory corpus.

Explicit exclusions and unresolved boundaries

The service focuses on regulatory obligations. It does not establish the complete contractual position, intellectual-property rights, employment arrangements, insurance coverage, litigation exposure, or whether an individual deployment is lawful. If a result has not addressed one of those topics, commission the appropriate review rather than interpreting silence as an exemption.

The public sample records capabilities with no obligation traced to them. Such a gap is not a finding that the capability is unregulated. Likewise, a missing location, role, data-category, or authority fact can prevent a reliable applicability decision.

Source maintenance: what can be observed

Carver stores source references and may report a source-currentness date alongside the assessment. This page does not assert a universal update cadence, comprehensive monitoring SLA, or independently validated completeness guarantee. Ask support for the maintenance scope relevant to a proposed use case, including the particular source versions, jurisdictions, and expected update interval.

One concrete check is to compare a sample’s source with the regulator’s subsequent publications. The worked assessment identifies historical New York guidance in a stored example and links its successors. That is an example of a source-currentness gap the reader must resolve before relying on the result.

Before using coverage as a release gate

1. List deployment and affected-user jurisdictions explicitly in the agent profile.
2. Save the assessment ID, generation time, returned source set, and profile version.
3. Read incomplete or capped areas and route unexplained gaps to an owner.
4. Verify relevant source versions and material applicability conditions.
5. Record a qualified decision and evidence separately from the automated suggestion.
6. Repeat the review when the workflow, deployment, or relevant source changes.

For a named-law coverage question, contact support@carveragents.ai with the law, jurisdiction, relevant agent capability, and planned reliance. A general demonstration should not be used as a substitute for that confirmation.