Media & Entertainment AI agent · Provenance
Content-Provenance & AI-Disclosure AI Agent
Assemble the provenance manifest and the disclosure evidence behind an asset, classify it against the marking and disclosure tests the market applies, and hold the label for the compliance lead who publishes it.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Compliance lead
- Before release
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Assembles the file, not the label a person signs
In
- 01
An asset is generated or altered, and the tool, the vendor and the transform are read from the pipeline record.
- 02
An asset arriving with a manifest has each assertion validated as intact — tamper-evidence, not a truth claim.
Reason
- 03
A market is added, and the asset is tested against the marking and disclosure duties that market imposes.
- 04
An asset is matched to Art. 50(2) marking and to Art. 50(4) deployer disclosure — both can attach to one asset.
- 05
An asset claimed under the assistive-editing carve-out carries a written reason the semantics were untouched.
Decide
- 06
An asset is re-checked at packaging, and the transform where its provenance was lost is named.
- 07
An asset inside an evidently artistic work routes for a disclosure of existence, which is a reduced duty.
Out
- 08
An asset is held with its manifest, its evidence, the residual ambiguity and the label proposed for it.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
The agent assembles and classifies; a named compliance lead publishes the label and answers for it, and the company stays the deployer.
Example workflow
One asset, ingest to label
- 1Asset receivedPipeline record, vendor manifest, transform log or delivery package
- 2Provenance assembledTools, transforms and assertions, each with where it survived and where it did not
- 3Classification proposedMarking duty, disclosure form, market and confidence
- 4Controls appliedManifest-validity checks, per-market duty checks, carve-out reasoning and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is labelled at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the lead's lane opens at the confidence gate.
Goes to the compliance lead to approve.
Adds a legal read first.
Compliance approval
The file is held with its manifest, its residual ambiguity and the confidence.
Approve · Amend · Send to legal review
Approved — released to label
- 6Publishing systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedAmendments, manifest survival at delivery, market challenges and post-release corrections
Amendments
Every amendment the lead makes is counted, including one made after the label shipped.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Publishing a label, or the asset that carries it.
- Deciding a work is evidently artistic under Art. 50(4).
- Signing a provenance manifest for the organisation.
- Holding editorial responsibility for a publication.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Assemble the manifest and record what each transform left.
- ✓Match each asset to the marking and disclosure tests it meets.
- ✓Re-check provenance at packaging, not only at ingest.
- ✓Flag what the evidence leaves ambiguous, and hold the file for the named owner.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the approver.
- Clearing an advertisement carrying a synthetic performer.
- Telling an authority that other measures are adequate.
- Accepting a vendor's marking claim as sufficient.
- Changes to classification, marking or approval rules.
Example output
One asset label, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the evidence it was drawn from.
Disclosure output · single asset
Illustrative example- Asset
- Feature, EU release
- Manifest finding
- Generative fill extended the background of a locked shot
- Transform
- Semantics altered
- Source of record
- Vendor manifest on file
- Confidence
- 91%
- Disclosure form
- Existence disclosure, end card
As received
Taken from the pipeline record and the vendor's manifest — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Evidence assembled
- Vendor manifest
- Transform log
- Delivery-package check
Why this form
The work is evidently artistic — the reduced duty a person still decides on.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold the file picks up a legal read before it reaches the lead.
Action
ApproveAmendSend to legal reviewValue
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value lands
Value 01 – 04
Every asset
From the pipeline record
Build from what survived
Draw on the pipeline record, the vendor manifests and the per-market duties configured for the release.
A manifest signs an organisation
C2PA v2.4 makes the claim generator a non-human actor and the signer a certificate holder — a product and a company, not a person.
Put the read where the duty bites
EU AI Act Article 50 applied on 2 August 2026, and the Digital Omnibus deferred the high-risk obligations rather than this one. Article 50(2) marking carries a grace period into December 2026 for generative systems already on the market.
Build an evidence trail
The asset, the manifest it carries and the person who published stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Provenance and manifests
- C2PA v2.4 manifests
- CAWG identity assertions
Post and delivery
- Editorial and VFX pipeline
- Transcode and packaging
Media asset management
- MAM and DAM systems
- Metadata and sidecar stores
Agent
Content provenance & AI disclosure
- Reads the asset
- Assembles the file
- Holds for approval
Publishing and compliance
- Playout and streaming
- Compliance case records
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
What sits between the model and a published label
Six controls wrapped around each other. What none of them catches is named in the map beneath.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a classification may stand
- L3
- Puts the label in a named person's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the asset and the manifest behind it
- L6
- Drops to manifest reporting when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the disclosure workflow — not only the published label.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the label the viewer sees
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the label match what the asset actually contains?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the pipeline record, the manifest and the market rules?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct asset and write the correct market's file?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence classifications actually attract more amendments?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific asset types?
- E6Business outcomeHow many labels needed an amendment, or a correction after release?
Floor — the exposure the company carries
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- WX-03
Ingest-only check
Provenance is read at ingest and never re-read.
Stage gathers
Pipeline record, manifests, transforms and duties
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- WX-04
Artistic work over-read
A reduced duty is treated as no duty at all.
- WX-06
Carve-out over-applied
A generative fill passes as standard editing.
Stage proposes
Marking duty, disclosure form and confidence
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- WX-02
File taken as label
An assembled file is treated as an approved label.
- WX-05
Template assertion carried
A manifest asserts a history the asset lacks.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- WX-01
Label not rendered
The placement chosen is not shown at first exposure.
Stage returns
The label the viewer sees and the file behind it
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- WX-07
Silent rule drift
A model or rule change narrows what is marked.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, classification and market rules
- Sev-1 · a label ships outside the boundary
- Sev-2 · a wrong label reaches distribution
- Sev-3 · source degrades, asset goes to review
Affected slices
Coverage in total can hide the market that fails
A slate-wide manifest-coverage figure can read as healthy while one market's assets carry most of the missing labels. Nestack reports the missing-label rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor-supplied generative elements | 8.7% | 3.7× | Review | |
| De-ageing and face replacement | 6.1% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Restoration and upscaling passes | 4.3% | 1.8× | Watch | |
| Camera-original masters | 1.2% | 0.5× | Normal |
Bar: missing-label-rate lift vs. camera-original baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
An explanation does not close a cycle
A cycle is closed when the missing label is a case the next release must survive. That suite is what the next asset published is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Missing-label rate rises in an asset slice.
- 02
Diagnose
The trailer that went out unlabelled in one market is traced back to the packaging step that dropped its manifest.
- 03
Improve
Number the correction, and the assets that surfaced it stay fastened to it.
- 04
Verify
No release while a touched label case is outstanding; it reruns first.
- 05
Learn
It becomes a fixture of the suite, and the marking rules follow it.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one missing-label case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, disclosure workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Disclosure workflow discovery and boundary work.Week 1
- 02Pipeline and vendor source review.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Market duty, carve-out and marking-rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Asset ingestion and manifest extraction.Week 2
- 05Transform tracking and evidence binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Confidence scoring and flag routing.Week 3
- 07Compliance approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Publishing and delivery integration.Week 5
- 09Marking and disclosure cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and publication controls.Week 4
- 11Asset-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
- 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel
Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
| Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier | PilotOne market, one slate | ProductionProduction delivery systems | AdvancedMultiple markets / brands |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Assembly to your pipeline and markets | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Compliance approval | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Manifest-coverage baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by market | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approval workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Production-pipeline integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-market duty sets | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-stage compliance approvals | — | — | ✓ |
| High asset volume | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-market disclosure controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
- Separate from build
- Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bring
We build with it
01Your pipeline and the transforms an asset passes
→Asset ingestion and manifest extraction
Week 102Assets you have already released with labels
→Coverage baseline and transform-survival checks
Week 203Your vendor terms and your Code of Practice position
→Market duty, carve-out and marking-rule mapping
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Pipeline and vendor source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Labels you would not want challenged
→Marking cases and the evaluation suite
Week 406What no label may assert
→Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and publication controls
Week 307Named approvers to publish the label
→Compliance approval workflow, then pilot and production validation
Weeks 5–6
Nothing else is required
Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each phase covers the weeks it really occupies, so week 5 runs two things at once.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Disclosure workflow discovery, duty mapping and the automation boundary
W2Pipeline integration and the coverage baseline
W3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and approval controls
W4Evaluation suite, marking checks and failure-mode testing
W5Delivery integration, pilot assets and targeted corrections
W6One release slate run under the compliance lead, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- Each bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real work, not padding.
- At the end of W6
- Validation closes on live assets, and Agent Care assumes the monitoring.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media & Entertainment AI agent
Build a provenance agent around the label a person signs.
Show us your pipeline, the markets you release into and who signs. Bring one release slate and we will map the transforms, the duties each market attaches and what stays with your compliance lead.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your pipeline and delivery stack
- Compliance lead
- Before release
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Content provenance & AI disclosure
AGT-ME-18 · Agent Care available after launch
