From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
The article treats software, databases, worker training, and business-process reorganization as complementary intangible investments needed to turn AI capability into productivity rather than as incidental rollout costs.
Scope: Broad AI/intangible-capital relationship, not a direct test of generative-AI adoption.
The empirical analysis found limited evidence of an AI productivity J-curve in the available data, preserving uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of returns even when complementary investments are conceptually important.
Scope: Available historical AI and intangible-investment data; not current GenAI firm outcomes.
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Broad AI and pre-current-GenAI data
- Intangible categories are difficult to measure
- Macro/industry patterns do not identify one firm's causal return
Source independence
Independent academic/macroeconomic analysis of AI and intangible assets.