Chief Executive Officer
Previous authoritative state: Tim Cook
New authoritative state: John Ternus
Publication: 2026-04-20T21:29:51+00:00; Effective: 2026-09-01T00:00:00+00:00
Source authority: Primary regulatory filing
Source: SEC EDGAR, Form 8-K
AuthorityPrompt U.S. Public Company Research
PUBLIC COMPANY INFORMATION INTEGRITY RECORD
Your company publishes authoritative disclosures.
What evidence exists after publication?
When authoritative corporate information passes through independent AI systems before reaching investors, journalists, customers and other third parties, an evidence gap can appear.
If AI presents a corporate fact incorrectly, can your organization show when it became aware, what information was within its control, what measures it considered or took, and what happened afterward?
AuthorityPrompt creates and preserves the factual evidence record needed to examine those questions.
AuthorityPrompt does not determine legal duties, liability, or which corrective measures are legally required or reasonable. It provides factual evidence for qualified legal, compliance and governance review.Evidence chain
AUTHORITATIVE FACTJohn Ternus
→AI REPRESENTATION1/4 providers measured
→DISCREPANCYNot observed
→AWARENESS / MEASURESNot applicable
→THIRD-PARTY RELIANCENot measured
What evidence could you produce?
Your organization already preserves evidence of what it discloses. What evidence could it produce about what happened after that disclosure entered the AI-mediated information ecosystem?
| Evidence state | Status |
|---|---|
| Authoritative filing and fact established | ✓ |
| Effective date preserved | ✓ |
| Independent AI representation measured | ? |
| Company awareness documented when relevant | ? |
| Response documented when relevant | ? |
| Retest after action | ? |
| Third-party reliance evidence | ? |
| Complete evidence history | ? |
AuthorityPrompt is designed to preserve a factual evidence process for what happens after authoritative disclosure.
What happens when a discrepancy is detected?
Authoritative change detected → AI representation observed → discrepancy preserved → review under the organization’s notification and access protocol → measures recorded when taken → AI retested → persistence or correction documented → evidence history retained.
What can you prove?
What was authoritative?
Recorded.
What did AI represent?
Recorded when measured.
When did your organization become aware?
Recorded when established.
What did the company control?
Recorded.
What corrective measures were considered or taken?
Recorded when documented.
Was the issue retested?
Recorded.
Did the representation persist or change?
Recorded.
Was third-party reliance established?
Separately evidenced — never assumed.
See the evidence record in practice: Apple
Company identity: Ticker Not established · Exchange Not established · SEC CIK Not established
Authoritative change
Independent AI observation
| Provider | Assessment | Observed |
|---|---|---|
| perplexity | Accurate | 2026-09-18T17:30:49.325090+00:00 |
| perplexity | Accurate | 2026-09-18T17:30:54.757521+00:00 |
| perplexity | Accurate | 2026-09-18T17:30:58.749426+00:00 |
Measured provider coverage: 1/4. Providers not measured are not treated as incorrect.
Discrepancy: Not observed in measured observations. Company awareness / corrective measures: Not applicable where no discrepancy was observed. Third-party reliance: Not measured.
Primary source: SEC EDGAR, Form 8-K
Corrective Measures — Evidence Record
AuthorityPrompt does not determine which measures are legally required or reasonable. It records the facts needed for qualified legal and governance analysis: when awareness was established, what information was within the organization’s control, what actions were available or taken, and what happened afterward.
Awareness should not be inferred from publication alone. Notification scope, access and internal review remain part of the organization’s own legal and governance protocol.
When this matters
CEO / CFO changes · M&A · corporate restructuring · material business changes · regulatory developments · corporate identity changes · official company facts · company-controlled AI information surfaces.
Every new authoritative change creates another point at which the official record and AI-mediated representation can diverge.
Could your company produce this evidence?
If AI misrepresents your next disclosure, will you know — and can you document what your organization did after becoming aware?
Run the process against your own authoritative corporate information. Establish the evidence record and see what your organization would be able to document if a discrepancy appeared.
No payment required.Methodology
AuthorityPrompt does not control, instruct or determine the outputs of the AI systems tested. These results are independent observations captured under the AuthorityPrompt Research Protocol.