Going Headless? On the Boundaries of Vertical AI Firms

May combine two claims.

Three patterns of orchestrator and vertical-firm relationships coexist today: open protocols governed by public specifications, developer terms, or standardized access rules rather than negotiated, relationship-specific bilateral contracts; curated commercial partnerships with negotiated contracts but no revenue share; and explicit revenue-sharing arrangements.

“Three patterns coexist today: open protocols governed by public specifications, developer terms, or standardized access rules rather than negotiated, relationshipspecific bilateral contracts (the long tail of Model Context Protocol servers, Gemini connectors, the open layer of OpenAI's Apps SDK); curated commercial partnerships with negotiated contracts but no revenue share; and explicit revenue-”

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In practice, enterprise customers increasingly negotiate data-use agreements that prohibit the orchestrator from using interaction data for model training, and the major orchestrator providers offer enterprise terms that exclude commercial or API inputs and outputs from training by default.

“In practice, enterprise customers increasingly negotiate data-use agreements that prohibit the orchestrator from using interaction data for model training, and the major orchestrator providers (including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google) offer enterprise terms that exclude commercial or API inputs and outputs from training by default.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

EMI developed the CT scanner breakthrough, but firms such as GE and Siemens were better positioned to scale the business through manufacturing, hospital sales, and service networks.

“EMI's CT scanner is the classic example: EMI developed the breakthrough, but firms such as GE and Siemens were better positioned to scale the business through manufacturing, hospital sales, and service networks.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Generic complementary assets are widely available and confer no particular advantage; anyone can rent them.

“Generic complementary assets are widely available and confer no particular advantage; anyone can rent them.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Teece distinguishes three kinds of complementary assets, and the distinction determines who captures the value.

“Teece distinguishes three kinds of complementary assets, and the distinction is what determines who captures the value.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Cospecialized complementary assets exhibit two-way dependence: the asset depends on the innovation and the innovation depends on the asset, with no easy substitute on either side.

“Cospecialized complementary assets exhibit two-way dependence: the asset depends on the innovation and the innovation depends on the asset, with no easy substitute on either side.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Activities are internalized when the costs of searching, coordinating, monitoring, and contracting through the market exceed the costs of managerial direction.

“Activities are internalized when searching, coordinating, monitoring, and contracting through the market cost more than managerial direction.”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Whether a vertical AI firm should go headless depends on the firm: the strategy is beneficial for some and harmful for others.

“This article argues that going headless is correct for some firms and destructive for others”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “That response is correct for some firms and destructive for others.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The envelopment dynamic maps onto agent ecosystems through three related mechanisms: envelopment proper, platform gatekeeping, and knowledge distillation and product-learning advantages from interface control.

“The dynamic maps onto agent ecosystems through three related mechanisms.”

May combine two claims.

The breakthrough belonged to EMI; the value belonged to whoever owned the complementary assets.

“The breakthrough belonged to EMI; the value belonged to whoever owned the complementary assets.”

May combine two claims.

All three mechanisms expose vertical AI firms to orchestrator decisions they cannot veto, and none requires a contract with the complementor; all three require only that the orchestrator owns the user-facing surface.

“All three mechanisms expose vertical AI firms to orchestrator decisions they cannot veto, and none requires a contract with the complementor; all three require only that the orchestrator owns the user-facing surface.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Firms exist because using markets is not costless.

“Coase argued that firms exist because using markets is not costless [1].”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Rule debt is the future governance, maintenance, and accountability burden that accrues to customer organizations when business rules and professional standards migrate from governed systems into prompts and agent instructions.

“formalizes the construct of rule debt: the future governance, maintenance, and accountability burden that accrues to customer organizations when business rules and professional standards migrate from governed systems into prompts and agent instructions.”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “It can also shift a new liability onto the customer organization: rule debt, the future governance burden that accrues when decision rules migrate from governed systems into prompts and agent instructions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The first mechanism is envelopment proper: the orchestrator builds native capabilities that substitute for the vertical tool, absorbing the functionality into its own offering.

“The first is envelopment proper: the orchestrator builds native capabilities that substitute for the vertical tool, absorbing the functionality into its own offering.”

May combine two claims.

Open protocols such as the Model Context Protocol reduce one form of friction by standardizing how agents connect to external tools and data, but they do not constrain the orchestrator's residual power to absorb, re-rank, substitute, or distill.

“Open protocols such as the Model Context Protocol reduce one form of friction by standardizing how agents connect to external tools and data [4], but they do not constrain the orchestrator's residual power to absorb, re-rank, substitute, or distill.”

• cites [4]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Complementary assets are the resources that turn an invention into a deliverable product: manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, service networks, brand, regulatory approvals, customer relationships, and the operational infrastructure that supports continued use.

“Complementary assets are the resources that turn an invention into a deliverable product: manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, service networks, brand, regulatory approvals, customer relationships, and the operational infrastructure that supports continued use.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Envelopment is the absorption of one platform's functionality into another by exploiting shared user bases and complementary capabilities, pushing the absorbed offering toward commoditization or irrelevance.

“Eisenmann, Parker, and Van Alstyne describe envelopment as the absorption of one platform's functionality into another by exploiting shared user bases and complementary capabilities, pushing the absorbed offering toward commoditization or irrelevance [3].”

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Customers bought bundles, and vertical AI firms grew up around bundling.

“So customers bought bundles, and vertical AI firms grew up around bundling.”

May combine two claims.

The interface is portable; the economic position may not be.

“The interface is portable; the economic position may not be.”

May combine two claims.

The cospecialized category is where strategic outcomes diverge, because cospecialization creates mutual dependence that binds value capture to whoever owns the asset.

“The cospecialized category is where strategic outcomes diverge, because cospecialization creates mutual dependence that binds value capture to whoever owns the asset.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The practical boundary between operational observation of interaction patterns and learning from them is difficult to verify externally even when contractual restrictions exist.

“The practical boundary between operational observation of interaction patterns and learning from them is also difficult to verify externally even when contractual restrictions exist.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The platform actor in this analysis is the orchestrator, not the vertical AI firm: the orchestrator aggregates users, tools, data sources, and third-party capabilities into the surface where work is requested, routed, and completed.

“The platform actor in this analysis is the orchestrator, not the vertical AI firm: the orchestrator aggregates users, tools, data sources, and third-party capabilities into the surface where work is requested, routed, and completed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

An invention without its complementary assets is a laboratory result, not a business.

“An invention without its complementary assets is a laboratory result, not a business.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Specialized complementary assets exhibit one-way dependence: the asset depends on the innovation but the innovation could in principle work with substitute assets.

“Specialized complementary assets exhibit one-way dependence: the asset depends on the innovation but the innovation could in principle work with substitute assets.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Frameworks built for bilateral contracting fit the curated and revenue-share patterns, while the open-protocol pattern requires platform-economic logic on platform openness and control instead.

“Frameworks built for bilateral contracting fit the curated and revenue-share patterns; 4 the open-protocol pattern requires platform-economic logic on platform openness and control instead [2].”

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

In industrial maintenance, the decision to defer maintenance on a turbine, refinery component, or aircraft subsystem carries safety, operational, and regulatory exposures that must attach to a named accountable party.

“In industrial maintenance, a system may predict equipment failure, but the decision to defer maintenance on a turbine, refinery component, or aircraft subsystem carries safety, operational, and regulatory exposures that must attach to a named accountable party.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Encoding business rules, professional standards, or operating policies in prompts, saved tasks, ad hoc scripts, and agent instructions rather than in governed systems creates future governance, maintenance, and accountability burden.

“Rule debt is the future governance, maintenance, and accountability burden created when business rules, professional standards, or operating policies are encoded in prompts, saved tasks, ad hoc scripts, and agent instructions rather than in governed systems.”

May combine two claims.

A firm following the headless prescription in an accountability-bound domain may give away the value-capture surface, and the discovery typically comes only after the migration is complete and the assets have already begun to dissipate.

“A firm following the headless prescription in an accountability-bound domain may discover that it has not just moved its interface to the orchestrator but given away the value-capture surface, and the discovery typically comes only after the migration is complete and the assets have already begun to dissipate.”

May combine two claims.

A vertical firm's investments in evidence systems, review processes, and escalation paths are not substitutable across domains: audit evidence infrastructure does not transfer to clinical decision support, and a clinical workflow is useless to an auditor.

“A vertical firm's investments in evidence systems, review processes, and escalation paths are not substitutable across domains: audit evidence infrastructure does not transfer to clinical decision support, and a clinical workflow is useless to an auditor.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Bilateral contracting changes the degree of protection but not the underlying boundary logic.

“But bilateral contracting does not change the central prescription of the article. It changes the degree of protection, not the underlying boundary logic.”

May combine two claims.

The distinction between component, integrated software platform, and dual-track strategic positions is based on task-accountability regime, not sector, and a single firm may contain all three.

“This yields three strategic positions: component, integrated software platform, 6 and dual-track.The distinction is not by sector but by task-accountability regime.A healthcare firm, a legal technology firm, or a procurement platform may contain all three at once.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Dual-track firms have two businesses: a component business optimizing for adoption, usage, interoperability, latency, and gross margin, and a platform business optimizing for retention, governance, risk reduction, evidence, and trust.

“Dual-track firms have two businesses, not one.The component business optimizes for adoption, usage, interoperability, latency, and gross margin.The platform business optimizes for retention, governance, risk reduction, evidence, and trust.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For vertical AI firms, accountability assets (evidence trails, evaluation infrastructure, professional review processes, escalation paths, regulated workflows, proprietary domain data, customer trust, and systems-of-record integrations) may support an orchestrator partnership but do not depend on any single orchestrator for their value.

“For vertical AI firms, those assets are usually the accountability assets: evidence trails, evaluation infrastructure, professional review processes, escalation paths, regulated workflows, proprietary domain data, customer trust, and systems-of-record integrations.These assets may support an orchestrator partnership, but they do not depend on any single orchestrator for their value.”

May combine two claims.

Many vertical AI firms were built around owning workflow, and their architectures and sales processes assumed that work would happen inside their product; moving from platform to component can cannibalize the interface, confuse buyers, and expose that the prior moat was orchestration rather than judgment.

“Many vertical AI firms were built around owning workflow.Their architectures and sales processes assumed that work would happen inside their product.Moving from platform to component is therefore not a simple API launch.It can cannibalize the interface, confuse buyers, and expose that the prior moat was orchestration rather than judgment.”

May combine two claims.

A bilateral contract gives the vertical firm more protection than an open-protocol participant has, but it does not eliminate the boundary problem.

“That contract matters.It gives the vertical firm more protection than an open-protocol participant has.But it does not eliminate the boundary problem.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The orchestrator usually owns the user-facing surface, routing logic, ranking rules, evaluation criteria, and terms under which third-party capabilities are discovered.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

A headless strategy bound to one agent recreates the envelopment exposure it was meant to avoid.

“A headless strategy bound to one agent recreates the envelopment exposure it was meant to avoid.”

May combine two claims.

The AI capability makes these assets more scalable and efficient, while these assets give the AI capability its legitimacy, defensibility, and operational integration.

“The AI capability makes these assets more scalable and efficient, while these assets give the AI capability its legitimacy, defensibility, and operational integration.”

May combine two claims.

The accountability moat is not absolute; some activities once treated as integrated professional judgment have been standardized and unbundled, and accountability can migrate when outputs become standardized, verification becomes statistical, regulators accept new control frameworks, and customers accept a different allocation of responsibility.

“The accountability moat is not absolute.Some activities once treated as integrated professional judgment have been standardized and unbundled.Technology-assisted review made large-scale legal document review more tool-mediated.Robo-advisers brought algorithmic portfolio management into a regulated advisory setting, while remaining subject to fiduciary obligations as registered investment advisers.”

• cites [9]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [10]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

An orchestrator's investments in planning quality, tool routing, and general reasoning capability are highly substitutable across domains: the same planning engine serves accounting, law, healthcare, and many other applications, so the orchestrator amortizes those investments across an enormous customer base and has strong incentive to make them.

“An orchestrator's investments in planning quality, tool routing, and general reasoning capability are highly substitutable across domains: the same planning engine serves accounting, law, healthcare, and a hundred other applications, so the orchestrator amortizes those investments across an enormous customer base and has strong incentive to make them.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Teece's framework adds a second variable that interacts with complementary-asset ownership: appropriability.

“Teece's framework adds a second variable that interacts with complementary-asset ownership: appropriability.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Treating the component and platform businesses as one prices accountability like traffic and evaluates governed work like an API call.

“Treating them as one business prices accountability like traffic and evaluates governed work like an API call.”

May combine two claims.

Firms invest more in assets whose returns they expect to capture; if a vertical firm's returns depend mainly on the orchestrator's future routing and ranking choices, it has weaker incentives to invest deeply in that relationship, whereas if it owns or controls accountability assets valuable regardless of orchestrator, it has stronger incentives to keep improving them.

“This matters because firms invest more in assets whose returns they expect to capture.If the vertical firm's returns depend mainly on the orchestrator's future routing and ranking choices, the vertical firm has weaker incentives to invest deeply in that relationship.If, instead, the vertical firm owns or controls the accountability assets that remain valuable regardless of which orchestrator is”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Audit evidence standards emphasize that reliability depends on the nature and source of evidence and the circumstances under which it is obtained.

“Audit evidence standards also emphasize that reliability depends on the nature and source of evidence and the circumstances under which it is obtained [6, 7].”

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Most accountability-bound domains fall into the second category, which is why the vertical firm's boundary should retain ownership of cospecialized assets even when the interface boundary moves.

“Most accountability-bound domains fall into the second category, which is why the vertical firm's boundary should retain ownership of cospecialized assets even when the interface boundary moves.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most accountability-bound domains fall into the category where domain-specific accountability infrastructure matters most.

May combine two claims.

Contracts cannot specify everything that may happen in the future; a partnership contract may say how an integration works today but cannot fully specify what happens if the orchestrator changes its ranking logic, launches a competing native feature, alters its evaluation method, changes its user interface, or extends the protocol in a way that favors some partners over others.

“The Grossman-Hart-Moore framework starts from another simple observation: contracts cannot specify everything that may happen in the future.A partnership contract may say how an integration works today, but it cannot fully specify what happens if the orchestrator changes its ranking logic, launches a competing native feature, alters its evaluation method, changes its user interface, or extends the”

• cites [14]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [15]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Some investments are much more valuable inside a particular relationship than outside it, and once made, the counterparty may have leverage because the investing firm cannot easily walk away without losing much of the value it has created.

“Williamson's hold-up framework begins with a simple observation: some investments are much more valuable inside a particular relationship than outside it.Once those investments are made, the counterparty may have leverage, because the investing firm cannot easily walk away without losing much of the value it has created.”

• cites [13]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Bilateral contracting improves the vertical firm's position relative to the open-protocol case, allowing a curated partner to negotiate enforceable terms and a revenue-sharing partner to secure commercial participation, and both to obtain more notice, predictability, and formal remedies.

“Bilateral contracting improves the vertical firm's position relative to the open-protocol case.A curated partner can negotiate enforceable terms.A revenue-sharing partner can secure commercial participation in the orchestrator's success.Both can obtain more notice, more predictability, and more formal remedies than an ordinary open-protocol participant.”

May combine two claims.

Platform research shows that APIs and developer ecosystems can move value creation outside the firm, but openness also changes control and risk.

“Platform research shows that APIs and developer ecosystems can move value creation outside the firm, but openness also changes control and risk [11].”

• cites [11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The open-protocol case, the curated-partnership case, and the revenue-sharing case differ in legal structure but converge on the same strategic lesson: the interface can move toward the orchestrator, but the accountability boundary should move only when accountability itself has migrated.

“The open-protocol case, the curated-partnership case, and the revenue-sharing case therefore differ in legal structure but converge on the same strategic lesson.The interface can move toward the orchestrator.The accountability boundary should move only when accountability itself has migrated.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The component-tier business does not require foundation models to remain weak at parsing; it requires only that the accuracy gap between general and specialized infrastructure remain meaningful in high-stakes document workflows.

“The component-tier business does not require foundation models to remain weak at parsing; it requires only that the accuracy gap between general and specialized infrastructure remain meaningful in high-stakes document workflows.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The accuracy gap between general and specialized infrastructure remains meaningful in high-stakes document workflows.

May combine two claims.

The vertical firm accumulates these domain-specific assets slowly through years of client and regulatory engagement, and only it has reason to invest in them.

“The vertical firm accumulates these domain-specific assets slowly through years of client and regulatory engagement, and only it has reason to invest in them.”

May combine two claims.

When a firm exposes its capability as a callable tool while ceding the workflow, the orchestrator controls the user relationship, the evaluation surface, the audit trail of which tools were invoked, and the surface where signoff occurs.

“In practice, the orchestrator now controls the user relationship, the evaluation surface, the audit trail of which tools were invoked, and the surface where signoff occurs.”

May combine two claims.

In accountability-bound domains, errors are costly, verification is difficult, context accumulates over time, and responsibility cannot be cleanly transferred to a general agent.

“Here errors are costly, verification is difficult, context accumulates over time, and responsibility cannot be cleanly transferred to a general agent.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Specialized assets such as proprietary domain data tilt advantage toward whoever owns them, but the AI capability could in principle work with alternative data sources.

“Specialized assets such as proprietary domain data tilt advantage toward whoever owns them, but the AI capability could in principle work with alternative data sources.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Together they identify three boundaries a vertical AI firm must distinguish: the interface boundary (where the product meets the orchestrator), the value-capture boundary (where appropriability concentrates), and the accountability boundary (where responsibility, evidence, and governance must reside).

“Together they identify three boundaries a vertical AI firm must distinguish: the interface boundary (where the product meets the orchestrator), the value-capture boundary (where appropriability concentrates), and the accountability boundary (where responsibility, evidence, and governance must reside).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Customer organizations adopting agentic automation accumulate rule debt when business rules, professional standards, and operating policies migrate into prompts and agent instructions rather than into governed systems.

“Customer organizations adopting agentic automation accumulate rule debt when business rules, professional standards, and operating policies migrate into prompts and agent instructions rather than into governed systems.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In vertical AI, generic assets such as compute confer little advantage because anyone can rent compute.

“In vertical AI, generic assets such as compute confer little advantage because anyone can rent compute.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Appropriability refers to how easily an innovator can prevent others from imitating the innovation itself, separate from any complementary asset.

“Appropriability refers to how easily an innovator can prevent others from imitating the innovation itself, separate from any complementary asset.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Strong appropriability comes from patents, secrecy, tacit knowledge, or lead-time advantages that competitors cannot quickly close; weak appropriability means the innovation can be freely replicated.

“Strong appropriability comes from patents, secrecy, tacit knowledge, or lead-time advantages that competitors cannot quickly close; weak appropriability means the innovation can be freely replicated.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Where appropriability is strong, through proprietary fine-tuning data that competitors cannot replicate, accumulated evaluation sets tightly coupled to the model, or genuinely tacit domain knowledge embedded in deployment, the firm has additional optionality and may capture value without owning the full accountability stack.

“Where appropriability is strong, through proprietary fine-tuning data that competitors cannot replicate, accumulated evaluation sets tightly coupled to the model, or genuinely tacit domain knowledge embedded in deployment, the firm has additional optionality and may capture value without owning the full accountability stack.”

May combine two claims.

Control over cospecialized assets materially improves a firm's ability to appropriate value, and that is where boundary choices over cospecialized assets become consequential.

“Control over cospecialized assets materially improves a firm's ability to appropriate value, and that is where boundary choices over cospecialized assets become consequential.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

A prompt that tells an agent how to classify a transaction, escalate a claim, summarize a medical message, assess a supplier, or approve an exception is an informal policy document.

“A prompt that tells an agent how to classify a transaction, escalate a claim, summarize a medical message, assess a supplier, or approve an exception is not just an instruction.It is an informal policy document.”

May combine two claims.

The interface boundary can often move; the accountability boundary typically should not.

“The first can often move; the third typically should not.”

May combine two claims.

Where the customer's combined output depends most on domain-specific accountability infrastructure, the vertical firm is the rational investor and owner or controller; under arrangements that leave those assets controlled elsewhere, no party has the incentive to invest in them at the level the domain requires, and the accountability infrastructure deteriorates.

“Where the customer's combined output depends most on domain-specific accountability infrastructure, the vertical firm is the rational investor and owner or controller; under arrangements that leave those assets controlled elsewhere, no party has the incentive to invest in them at the level the domain requires, and the accountability infrastructure deteriorates.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Under arrangements that leave cospecialized assets controlled elsewhere, no party has incentive to invest in them at the level the domain requires.

May combine two claims.

When the contract is silent, control over the relevant asset matters; the orchestrator usually controls the interface, marketplace, routing system, user relationship, and rules by which third-party tools are surfaced, while the vertical firm controls or should try to control domain-specific assets that make its outputs trustworthy.

“When the contract is silent, control over the relevant asset matters.The orchestrator usually controls the interface, the marketplace, the routing system, the user relationship, and the rules by which third-party tools are surfaced.The vertical firm controls, or should try to control, the domain-specific assets that make its outputs trustworthy: the evidence chain, the review workflow, the audit”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The orchestrator usually controls the interface, marketplace, routing system, user relationship, and rules by which third-party tools are surfaced.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The vertical AI firms that survive will make their expertise easy to call and their accountability hard to copy, while losers will celebrate going headless while quietly giving up the assets that made them vertical, and the surrender will show up in underinvestment in the things they no longer own or control.

“The vertical AI firms that survive will not defend every screen, nor will they dissolve themselves into someone else's agent.They will make their expertise easy to call and their accountability hard to copy.The losers will celebrate going headless while quietly giving up the assets that made them vertical, and the surrender will show up not in their announcements but in their underinvestment in”