Conflicts of Interest
What counts as a conflict
A conflict of interest exists when a reasonable observer could conclude that a person’s judgment, recommendations, or editorial decisions might be influenced by a material relationship.
We disclose the following types of conflicts:
Financial conflicts
-
employment or contract work with relevant entities
-
equity ownership, tokens, or significant holdings
-
paid advisory roles
-
significant gifts, travel, or honoraria
Institutional / governance conflicts
-
board membership, officer roles, or governance authority in relevant entities
-
formal representation of organizational interests
Professional / role conflicts
-
ongoing consulting, lobbying, or policy advocacy roles that intersect with ICI outputs
Personal conflicts
-
close personal relationships that create an appearance of bias in a specific decision (handled case-by-case)
Who is covered
This policy applies to:
-
core team members
-
steering/advisory members (if applicable)
-
paid contractors working on substantive content
-
reviewers who provide substantial input on key outputs (where feasible)
What we disclose (and what we don’t)
We aim to disclose enough to evaluate influence without over-collecting personal data.
We generally do not publish sensitive personal details unless essential for transparency.
Disclosure process & management
Disclosure timing
-
Initial disclosure: required upon joining the team / advisory role / major contributor status.
-
Ongoing updates: within 30 days of a material change, or prior to participation in a decision affected by the relationship.
-
Publication-time check: disclosures are reviewed before releasing major framework/tool updates.
How conflicts are managed
When a conflict is material to a decision, we use one or more of:
-
recusal from the decision
-
public disclosure alongside the output
-
independent review by someone without the conflict
-
documented dissent or minority report (when relevant)
If a conflict cannot be managed adequately, the person may be excluded from that workstream.
Founding Humanity Partner potential conflicts will be disclosed by April 1, 2026.
Transparency
Last Updated March 3, 2026
This page describes:
-
How ICI is funded and supported
-
Who makes decisions and how
-
What counts as a conflict of interest
-
How conflicts are disclosed and managed
-
How to request corrections or report integrity concerns
If you have questions about anything here, contact us at andi@lumenlawcenter.com or reach out to any Founding Humanity Partner.
What's this page?
1
ICI commits to:
-
Public-interest orientation: We prioritize public benefit, institutional integrity, and accountability in AI governance.
-
Transparency by default: We disclose funding, material relationships, and decision processes relevant to our work.
-
No undisclosed influence: We do not accept hidden conditions that determine our conclusions or public outputs.
-
Traceable work: We version key outputs and maintain a changelog so updates are understandable and attributable.
-
Corrections and accountability: We maintain a clear corrections process and respond to credible concerns.
Mission-aligned commitments
2
Current funding status
As of March 3, 2026, ICI’s funding status is:
-
Financial support: Lumen Law Center [$1,000-$10,000], Andi Mazingo, Esq. [$1,000-10,000]
-
In-kind support: Pro bono legal services and administrative support from Lumen Law Center; work on concept note, funding meetings, and online content by all Founding Humanity Partners
-
Fiscal sponsorship: Lumen Law Center
-
Affiliations: Independent
Donor influence policy
-
Funding does not confer editorial control over ICI’s research, recommendations, framework language, or public outputs.
-
We do not accept funding conditioned on:
-
veto rights over publication,
-
suppression of findings,
-
exclusive access to drafts beyond standard review processes,
-
specific conclusions.
-
How we disclose funding
We disclose:
-
the identity of funders providing material support (or explain why disclosure is not possible),
-
the form of support (financial vs in-kind),
-
whether support is restricted to a specific workstream,
-
and any relevant governance rights (if any).
Funding & support
3
How decisions are made
ICI decisions fall into three categories:
Editorial / publication decisions (what gets published and when)
Owned by: Founding Humanity Partner current operational lead, Andi Mazingo
Decision rule:
-
for meaning change in ICI-affiliated materials, we make a good-faith attempt for consensus; if none, operational lead decision with recorded dissent;
-
for no meaning change, team members can publish anytime.
Meaning changes require elevated review and are released as a blog post with a public rationale.
Framework architecture decisions (core definitions, principles, and structure)
Owned by: Founding Humanity Partner [philosophical / engineering] lead
Decision rule:
-
for core changes (purpose, scope, key definitions, core principles & commitments, tool architecture, decision rights, governance model, material conflict-of-interest policy, and reuse terms) supermajority [majority +1] required;
-
for non-core substantive changes (editorial improvements, routine updates, added references, and implementation details that do not alter core): good-faith attempt for consensus followed by _____ lead decision with recorded dissent.
Core changes require elevated review and are released as a new version with a public rationale.
Operational decisions (budget, vendors, logistics)
Owned by: Founding Humanity Partner operational lead, Andi Mazingo
Decision rule: good-faith attempt for consensus followed by operational lead decision with recorded dissent in an internal, auditable ledger.
Participation and review
We use the following inputs where feasible:
-
structured stakeholder interviews
-
open calls for feedback / public comment windows
-
expert review (with disclosed reviewer relationships when material)
We do not treat feedback as binding unless explicitly stated.