Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew YorkReferred
A 11684: Relates to the disclosure of artificial intelligence use in floor statements and debate by members of the legislature
Rules Committee
A 11684 status: Referred — REFERRED TO GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS (updated Sep 2, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
75OUT OF 100
Score:75/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 40/100
Constitutionality85%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion75%
Bill summary
Enacts the "compulsory artificial narrative disclosure for official rhetoric (CANDOR) act" in relation to requiring any member of the senate or assembly that rises to speak, read a statement, or enter comments into the official legislative record to verbally state a standard disclosure prior to delivering such remarks if such remarks were drafted in whole or in part by artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Society
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
75%
Benefits
- Ensures public transparency regarding AI-generated content in floor debates
- Distinguishes between human-drafted and AI-assisted legislative remarks
- Formalizes disclosures within the official legislative record
Risks
- Estimating precise percentages of AI involvement is inherently subjective
- Point of order mechanisms could be weaponized to obstruct legislative debate
- Lack of clear guidance on how to verify AI-content percentage creates enforcement ambiguity
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The 'digital watermark' penalty for non-compliance could lead to highly partisan disputes over records.
Analysis scope
The bill does not define a standard methodology for calculating the 'percentage' of AI usage.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeCurrent
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.