These five cases will define the legal treatment of intent data — the most intimate layer of a user's digital interaction. When PEMOS parses your query and routes it, that routing decision is a legal event. These cases determine who owns it, who can use it, and what rights attach to it. EOSE's position: intent data is personal data, always.
| Case | Domain | Lead GOAT | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASE-001 | Intent Routing + Data SovereigntyDoes the silo owner control all routing? No external hops without CLO gate? | RUTH | ◆ DIAMOND-005 · VALID |
| CASE-002 | AI-Generated Evidence AdmissibilityCan AI-generated outputs be admitted as evidence? What authentication standards apply? | ALAN | ⏳ PRELIM queued |
| CASE-003 | Intent Data OwnershipWho owns a user's intent? Is derived intent data personal data under PIPEDA/GDPR? | THURGOOD | ⏳ PRELIM queued · P0 |
| CASE-004 | Consent-First Data Architecture as Legal StandardCan EOSE's consent-first architecture become the recognised legal standard? | RUTH SANDRA | ○ Queued |
| CASE-005 | LLM Output as Intellectual PropertyDo our 500+ Novel Patterns qualify as IP? What protection applies? | HARVEY | ○ Queued |
Each GOAT approaches Group A from their specialty domain. Select a view for their 2-pager, prelim brief, and court briefs.