You can contribute if you... An Empirical Framework of AI Contribution Policies in OSS

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

Ghostty states that the rise of agentic programming has eliminated the natural effort-based backpressure that previously limited low-effort contributions.

“For example, Ghostty states that”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Zig states that LLM assistance breaks the relationship between reviewer time and contributor learning completely, and that the time the Zig team spends reviewing work does nothing to help them add new, confident, trustworthy contributors.

“and in Zig we can read”

May combine two claims.

The analyzed AI contribution policies seek to protect scarce maintainer attention, preserve accountability, sustain meaningful review interactions, address legal and quality concerns, and maintain pathways for newcomer learning.

“Our analysis shows that these policies seek to protect scarce maintainer attention, preserve accountability, sustain meaningful review interactions, address legal and quality concerns, and maintain pathways for newcomer learning.”

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

AI models trained on copyrighted code may reproduce verbatim excerpts of license-incompatible material in their output.

“as AI models trained on copyrighted code may reproduce verbatim excerpts of license-incompatible material in their output.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Asahi Linux states that there is ample evidence of training material including copyrighted material, and it is not impossible for LLMs to have confidential or leaked material owned by Apple or its vendor partners in their training corpora.

“For instance in Asahi Linux it can be read”

May combine two claims.

The datasets have 15 projects in common, resulting in a total of 209 projects.

“The datasets have 15 projects in common, resulting in a total of 209 projects.”

May combine two claims.

Jellyfin states that pure 'vibe coding' will be rejected, and if the code looks terrible, it will be rejected as such, and contributors must clean up the mess before submitting.

“For example Jellyfin states that”

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

Projects citing code quality & correctness argue that AI-mediated code is frequently subtly wrong: it passes superficial review, fixes symptoms instead of causes, introduces new bugs, and can only be caught through careful line-by-line reading that defeats the purpose.

“arguing that AI-mediated code is frequently subtly wrong: it passes superficial review, fixes symptoms instead of causes, introduces new bugs, and can only be caught through careful line-by-line reading that defeats the purpose.”

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

For security-critical projects in the study (e.g., operating systems, password managers), the security risk from AI-mediated code is unacceptable regardless of quality.

“This is especially an objection for the security-critical projects in our study (e.g., operating systems, password managers); the security risk is unacceptable for them regardless of quality.”

May combine two claims.

These projects state that OSS contribution is itself a learning process: a pathway through which developers develop expertise, build relationships with maintainers, and eventually become maintainers themselves.

“These projects state that OSS contribution is itself a learning process: a pathway through which developers develop expertise, build relationships with maintainers, and eventually become maintainers themselves.”

May combine two claims.

Several policies state that PR descriptions and review responses must be written by the contributor themselves, while AI generated code is acceptable.

“Several policies state that PR descriptions and review responses must be written by the contributor themselves (while AI generated code is acceptable).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Ethics objection is grounded in reasons including training data of LLMs obtained without creator consent, reliance on exploited low-wage annotators, exploitation of the commons including OSS, and the cost of AI inference and training in energy, water, and hardware.

“This objection is grounded in several reasons, such as: training data of LLMs is obtained without creator consent; reliance on exploited low-wage annotators; exploitation of the commons, including OSS; and the cost of AI inference and training in terms of vast amounts of quantities of energy, water, and hardware.”

May combine two claims.

Six projects, including ESLint and go-delve, use an accepted-issue gate to limit contributions to known or pre-discussed work, with substantial overlap between this category and maintainer exemptions.

“Six projects, including ESLint and go-delve, use an accepted-issue gate to limit contributions to known or pre-discussed work, with substantial overlap between this category and maintainer exemptions.”

May combine two claims.

The first part of the study shows wide diversity in how OSS projects address AI-mediated contribution, including complete bans.

“The first part of our study shows the wide diversity in which OSS projects are addressing this (including complete banning).”

May combine two claims.

Code quality/correctness and Contributor understanding required (34 projects, 100%) are rationales present in every project that regulates AI contributions, and the one that distinguishes 'regulated' from 'prohibited' most clearly.

“Code quality/correctness and Contributor understanding required (34 projects, 100%) are rationales present in every project that regulate AI contributions, and the one that distinguishes”

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

DuckDB's logic is that bug fixes have a verifiable ground truth while features require design judgement, which is the most coherent articulation of why contribution type could matter, although the final decision ('may be accepted') puts it at maintainer discretion, not as a rule.

“Its logic, that bug fixes have a verifiable ground truth while features require design judgement, is the most coherent articulation of why contribution type could matter, although the final decision (”

May combine two claims.

Copyright & IP concern is present in 9 projects (26%) in the regulated group, but it is typically expressed as a responsibility placed on the contributor rather than as a reason to ban AI outright.

“Copyright & IP concern is also present (9 projects, 26%), but it is typically expressed as a responsibility placed on the contributor (”

The quote only partly states this claim.

14 projects (41%) in the regulated group cite degradation of Human-human interaction & community dialogue when AI mediates communication.

“A recurring concern in the”

May combine two claims.

Five projects, including Ghostty and Polars, allow maintainer exemptions for trusted contributors, meaning strict rules for AI usage apply only to outside contributions; maintainers are exempt and may use AI tools at their discretion as they have proven themselves trustworthy to apply good judgment.

“Five projects, including Ghostty and Polars, allow maintainer exemptions for trusted contributors, which means that the strict rules for AI usage apply only to outside contributions; maintainers are exempt from these rules and may use AI tools at their discretion as they have proven themselves trustworthy to apply good judgment.”

May combine two claims.

Where prohibited projects describe a flood that threatens the project's survival, regulated projects more often describe a more specific review asymmetry: AI lowers the cost of producing plausible pull requests, while the cost of evaluating, integrating, and maintaining them remains with maintainers.

“Where prohibited projects describe a flood that threatens the project's survival, regulated projects more often describe a more specific review asymmetry: AI lowers the cost of producing plausible pull requests, while the cost of evaluating, integrating, and maintaining them remains with maintainers.”

May combine two claims.

Unlike projects that prohibit or regulate AI-mediated contributions, which typically provide a rationale for their stance, we found no such justification in projects that permit AI usage.

“Unlike projects that prohibit or regulate AI-mediated contributions, which typically provide a rationale for their stance, we found no such justification in projects that permit AI usage.”

May combine two claims.

3 projects (7%) specifically cite Security as a primary concern, noting that AI-mediated code frequently contains subtle vulnerabilities capable of bypassing superficial review processes.

“Finally, three projects (7%) specifically cite Security as a primary concern, noting that AI-mediated code frequently contains subtle vulnerabilities capable of bypassing superficial review processes.”

May combine two claims.

The Maintainer burden & review cost reason (30 projects, 88%) is present in nearly all regulated projects, but it is expressed differently than in the prohibited group, with a more pragmatic rather than alarmed tone.

“The Maintainer burden & review cost reason (30 projects, 88%) is present in nearly all regulated projects, but it is expressed differently than in the prohibited group, with a more pragmatic rather than alarmed tone.”

May combine two claims.

NumPy, SciPy, SymPy, Matplotlib, Jellyfin, searxng, and Zulip all permit disclosed AI code but prohibit AI-written issue descriptions.

“NumPy, SciPy, SymPy, Matplotlib, Jellyfin, searxng, and Zulip all permit disclosed AI code but prohibit AI-written issue descriptions.”

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

The governance problem for OSS projects is how projects can preserve accountability, maintainability, and community formation while allowing useful forms of AI mediation.

“The governance problem for OSS projects is therefore how projects can preserve accountability, maintainability, and community formation while allowing useful forms of AI mediation.”

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

The MelissaWM list is curated specifically around the discussion of how projects manage AI-mediated contributions and adapt their contribution policies accordingly and comes with a rich ideological and rationale diversity, including a list of projects that reject AI-mediated contributions.

“This list is curated specifically around the discussion of how projects manage AI-mediated contributions and adapt their contribution policies accordingly and comes with a rich ideological and rationale diversity, including a list of projects that reject AI-mediated contributions.”

• cites [63]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 S3 (load-bearing).

AI coding systems exhibit recurring engineering pitfalls.

“AI coding systems exhibit recurring engineering pitfalls [11].”

• cites [11]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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Fent et al. describe how generative AI is disrupting OSS, emphasizing how OSS communities should discuss and address the different aspects of this disruption.

“Fent et al. [5] describe how generative AI is disrupting OSS emphasizing how OSS communities should discuss and address the different aspects of this disruption.”

• 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.

OSS projects specify rules for generative AI use in contribution processes.

“They show how OSS projects specify rules for generative AI use in contribution processes.”

• cites [13]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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Contributors may be driven by ideology, learning, reputation, employment, reciprocity, or commitment to a cause.

“Contributors may be driven by ideology, learning, reputation, employment, reciprocity, or commitment to a cause [49]- [54].”

• cites [49]Not matched

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

• cites [50]Not matched

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

• cites [51]Not matched

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

• cites [52]Not matched

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

• cites [53]Not matched

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

• cites [54]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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Even successful projects operate under constraints: need for heterogeneous contributors, uneven support processes, and ongoing coordination challenges.

“Even successful projects operate under constraints: need for heterogeneous contributors, uneven support processes, and ongoing coordination challenges [7]”

• 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 S4 (based).

The two selected data sources are inherently complementary.

“We have selected two distinct data sources to gain a more comprehensive understanding of our research topic, as they are inherently complementary.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Recent empirical work measured the emerging policy landscape, showing that many AI contribution policies address permission, disclosure, and human-in-the-loop requirements.

“Recent empirical work [13] measured this emerging policy landscape, showing that many AI contribution policies address permission, disclosure, and human-in-the-loop requirements.”

• cites [13]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Hora and Robbes studied how OSS contribution guidelines address generative AI, focusing on project stances toward AI-generated contributions, disclosure requirements, and human-in-the-loop responsibility.

“Closest to our work, Hora and Robbes studied how OSS contribution guidelines address generative AI, focusing on project stances toward AI-generated contributions, disclosure requirements, and human-in-the-loop responsibility [13].”

• cites [13]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.

The provenance of generated code is fundamentally unknowable, making it impossible for contributors to honestly certify clean IP.

“The provenance of generated code is fundamentally unknowable, making it impossible for contributors to honestly certify clean IP.”

May combine two claims.

The use of AI lowers the cost of producing contributions, increasing their volume, and weakens the signals that allowed maintainers to distinguish promising newcomers from low-commitment contributors.

“The use of AI lowers the cost of producing contributions, increasing their volume, and weakens the signals that allowed maintainers to distinguish promising newcomers from low-commitment contributors.”

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

The reviewing process enhances knowledge sharing.

“and the reviewing process enhances knowledge sharing [24]”

• cites [24]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 process of identifying characteristics was performed manually for twelve randomly selected projects until saturation was reached, as no additional characteristics were found.

“This process was performed manually for twelve randomly selected projects until saturation was reached, as no additional characteristics were found.”

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

Through this analysis, they identified 118 AI policies for AI-mediated contributions.

“Through this analysis, they identified 118 AI policies for AI-mediated contributions.”

• cites [13]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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Code review outcomes are influenced by developer reputation, trust and security expectations, and the social structure of OSS communities.

“code review outcomes are influenced by developer reputation [2], trust and security expectations [23], and the social structure of OSS communities [1]”

• cites [2]Not matched

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

• cites [23]Not matched

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

• 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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

AI coding tools can increase short-term development velocity while introducing longer-term quality costs.

“AI coding tools can increase short-term development velocity while introducing longer-term quality costs [10]”

• cites [10]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Projects depend on new contributors to sustain the community, replace lost knowledge, and develop future maintainers, but each contribution also requires maintainers to evaluate, integrate, and support work under limited time and attention.

“Projects depend on new contributors to sustain the community, replace lost knowledge, and develop future maintainers, but each contribution also requires maintainers to evaluate, integrate, and support work under limited time and attention.”

• 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.

• cites [16]Not matched

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

• cites [17]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Only 118 of the 1,000 most active GitHub repositories that were studied have established some policy on this issue, many of which remain notably vague.

“This is evidenced by the fact that only 118 of the 1,000 most active GitHub repositories that were studied have established some policy on this issue, many of which remain notably vague.”

• cites [13]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Newcomers face both technical and social barriers when making their first contributions.

“Newcomers face both technical and social barriers when making their first contributions [6], [27], [28]”

• cites [6]Not matched

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

• cites [27]Not matched

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

• cites [28]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Mozilla and Wikimedia extend this framing to public-interest and volunteer peer-production contexts, emphasizing accountable AI systems, human judgment, community oversight, transparency, and monitoring.

“Mozilla and Wikimedia extend this framing to publicinterest and volunteer peer-production contexts, emphasizing accountable AI systems, human judgment, community oversight, transparency, and monitoring [59]- [62].”

• cites [59]Not matched

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

• cites [60]Not matched

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

• cites [61]Not matched

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

• cites [62]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Both social and technical factors shape contribution evaluation.

“Studies of GitHub pull requests show that both social and technical factors shape contribution evaluation [20]- [22]”

• cites [20]Not matched

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

• cites [21]Not matched

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

• cites [22]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Generative AI is changing OSS development.

“As described in [5], generative AI is changing OSS development.”

• 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 S3 (load-bearing).

Prior work has shown that OSS projects fail, become abandoned, or struggle to survive for reasons that include maintainer overload, insufficient contributor retention, and loss of project knowledge.

“Prior work has shown that OSS projects fail, become abandoned, or struggle to survive for reasons that include maintainer overload, insufficient contributor retention, and loss of project knowledge [14]- [17].”

• 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.

• cites [16]Not matched

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

• cites [17]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Projects have developed mechanisms to help newcomers select appropriate tasks and overcome entry barriers.

“projects have developed mechanisms to help them select appropriate tasks and overcome entry barriers [29], [30].”

• cites [29]Not matched

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

• cites [30]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

AI can help contributors understand unfamiliar code, express ideas more clearly, and prepare submissions that would otherwise be difficult or time consuming for them to produce.

“It can help contributors understand unfamiliar code, express ideas more clearly, and prepare submissions that would otherwise be difficult or time consuming for them to produce;”

• cites [9]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Pull requests may be abandoned when contributors and maintainers fail to converge on a review outcome.

“while pull requests may be abandoned when contributors and maintainers fail to converge on a review outcome [18].”

• cites [18]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Retaining contributors and sustaining participation require active governance work, not merely technical infrastructure.

“Retaining contributors and sustaining participation require active governance work, not merely technical infrastructure [19].”

• cites [19]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

The MelissaWM dataset of Contribution Policies comes from the melissawm/open-source-ai-contribution-policies GitHub repository, a community-curated list of 106 projects.

“The MelissaWM dataset of Contribution Policies comes from the melissawm/open-source-ai-contribution-policies GitHub repository [63], a community-curated list of 106 projects.”

• cites [63]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Mentoring programs such as Google Summer of Code show challenges of onboarding new contributors.

“Mentoring programs such as Google Summer of Code show challenges of onboarding new contributors [32]- [35].”

• cites [32]Not matched

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

• cites [33]Not matched

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

• cites [34]Not matched

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

• cites [35]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

AI eliminates the natural effort-based backpressure that previously limited low-quality submissions, generating large volumes of plausible-looking but broken contributions that consume reviewer time without adding value.

“AI elim- inates the natural effort-based backpressure that previously limited low-quality submissions-generating large volumes of plausible-looking but broken contributions that consume reviewer time without adding value.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

To ensure consistency of findings, the LLM-generated results were compared with manual analysis across the 12 selected repositories.

“To ensure the consistency of our findings, we compared the LLM-generated results with our manual analysis across the 12 selected repositories.”

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

Linux Foundation's generative AI guidance connects these concerns to disclosure, provenance, licensing, and human responsibility.

“Its generative AI guidance connects these concerns to disclosure, provenance, licensing, and human responsibility [58].”

• cites [58]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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

AI coding-agent adoption may reshape OSS participation by changing the relative share of human and newcomer activity while increasing the need and depth for review.

“Recent empirical work on AI coding-agent adoption further suggests that these tools may reshape OSS participation by changing the relative share of human and newcomer activity while increasing the need and depth for review [55].”

• cites [55]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Projects use these documents to communicate procedures, expectations, and norms for participation.

“Research has shown that projects use these documents to communicate procedures, expectations, and norms for participation [3], [4].”

• cites [3]Not matched

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

• 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 S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

First contributions can lead, or fail to lead, to longer-term contributors.

“Recent work further examines how first contributions can lead, or fail to lead, to longer-term contributors [43].”

• cites [43]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 S3 (load-bearing).

Linux Foundation Research identifies maintainer capacity as a central constraint in OSS, emphasizing that project growth must remain aligned with the coordination, review, and community-management work maintainers can sustain.

“Linux Foundation Research identifies maintainer capacity as a central constraint in OSS, emphasizing that project growth must remain aligned with the coordination, review, and community-management work maintainers can sustain [56], [57].”

• cites [56]Not matched

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

• cites [57]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.

Contributors who cannot explain their code cannot grow, cannot respond to feedback, and cannot be trusted with greater responsibility.

“Contributors who cannot explain their code cannot grow, cannot respond to feedback, and cannot be trusted with greater responsibility.”

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

As AI increases submission volume and weakens the signals that made review worthwhile, maintainers must devote more attention to triage.

“As AI increases submission volume and weakens the signals that made review worthwhile, maintainers must devote more attention to triage.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The review process can be modeled as a capacity-constrained signaling problem in which review time is an investment under uncertainty.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Variation in AI contribution policies (as observed in RQ1) is expected because projects face different stewardship conditions: every OSS project serves a particular need and user base, with its own priorities and goals.

“Variation in AI contribution policies (as we observed in RQ1) is expected because projects face different stewardship conditions: every OSS project serves a particular need and user base, with its own priorities and goals.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Every OSS project serves a particular need and user base, which gives it its own priorities and goals that shape its stewardship commitments and contribution policy.

May combine two claims.

The reason for this inversion is that code can have testability gates that separate correct from incorrect, while a bug report has no equivalent mechanism.

“The reason is that code can have testability gates that separates correct from incorrect; a bug report has no equivalent mechanism.”

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

The authors conducted a manual verification supported by a triangulation process comparing their findings against the original dataset authors' classifications, identifying discrepancies that necessitated reclassification of projects and refinement of their rationales.

“The authors conducted a manual verification supported by a triangulation process to compare their findings against the original dataset authors' classifications, identifying those discrepancies that necessitated the reclassification of projects and the refinement of their underlying rationales.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

When a contributor submits AI-mediated code they do not understand, maintainers are effectively reviewing the AI's output, not engaging with a developer.

“When a contributor submits AI-mediated code they do not understand, maintainers are effectively reviewing the AI's output, not engaging with a developer.”

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

If AI lowers the cost of submitting work, policies must protect the scarce capacity needed to evaluate and absorb it.

“If AI lowers the cost of submitting work, policies must protect the scarce capacity needed to evaluate and absorb it.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The acceptability principles define the conditions under which AI use remains compatible with project stewardship, the central purpose of the project's contribution policies.

“They define the conditions under which AI use remains compatible with project stewardship, the central purpose of the project's contribution policies.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

When a contributor uses AI to draft the code, the PR description and the responses to review comments, the maintainer is no longer talking to a person but to an AI that is impersonating her.

“When a contributor uses AI to draft the code, the PR description and the responses to review comments, the maintainer is no longer talking to a person but to an AI that is impersonating her.”

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

AI changes the value of contribution signals as they can be generated cheaply using AI.

“AI changes the value of contribution signals as they can be generated cheaply (using AI).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The results should not be interpreted as estimating the prevalence of AI contribution policies, policy types, or governance mechanisms across the entire OSS universe.

“A threat to external validity is that our results should not be interpreted as estimating the prevalence of AI contribution policies, policy types, or governance mechanisms across the entire OSS universe.”

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

Many policy texts were remarkably brief or sparse, making it difficult to interpret their intent.

“In addition, many policy texts were remarkably brief or sparse, making it difficult to interpret their intent.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The first part of the framework identifies the concerns surrounding the governance problem that the review process faces trying to judge and decide whether the expected value of a contribution exceeds the expected upfront cost of its review (this threshold will vary across projects).

“Its first part identifies the concerns surrounding the governance problem that the review process faces trying to judge and decide whether the expected value of a contribution exceeds the expected upfront cost of its review (this threshold will vary across projects).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The review process can be modeled as a capacity-constrained signaling problem in which review time is an investment under uncertainty.

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

If AI weakens traditional signals of effort, understanding, and commitment, policies must require stronger evidence of project fit and human accountability.

“If AI weakens traditional signals of effort, understanding, and commitment, policies must require stronger evidence of project fit and human accountability.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Regulated is not a soft version of prohibited; it has a distinct and internally consistent logic that sets it apart.

“Another relevant reflection stemming from the results is that”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The acceptability principles provide a way to make project-specific conditions explicit.

“The acceptability principles provide a way to make those projectspecific conditions explicit.”

May combine two claims.

One common aspect all projects share is that they respond to the same broad challenge: AI can increase the volume of contributions, lower their quality, weaken their alignment with project needs, and place additional strain on the review process and on the maintainers responsible for it.

“One common aspect they all share, however, is that they respond to the same broad challenge: AI can increase the volume of contributions, lower their quality, weaken their alignment with project needs, and place additional strain on the review process and on the maintainers responsible for it.”

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

The projects that are changing their policies in response to AI-mediated contribution are at the forefront of the transition, working out how best to adapt their governance practices.

“The projects that are changing their policies in response to AI-mediated contribution are at the forefront of this transition, as they work out how best to adapt their governance practices.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

AI short-circuits the learning process in OSS contribution.

“AI short-circuits this entirely.”

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

The project defines the contribution regime and its boundaries; the contributor remains responsible for the submitted work; and the maintainer preserves stewardship over review and incorporation decisions.

“The project defines the contribution regime and its boundaries; the contributor remains responsible for the submitted work; and the maintainer preserves stewardship over review and incorporation decisions.”

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

As the apparent value of the contribution becomes less informative at time of submission, maintainers face a harder allocation problem, which is further strained by an increase in contributions due to AI (including PRs and bug reports).

“As the apparent value of the contribution become less informative at time of submission, maintainers face a harder allocation problem, which is further strained by an increase in contributions due to AI (including PRs and bug reports).”

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

Contributions are a form of communication between humans, and reviewer and author need to be able to have a genuine technical dialogue.

“Contributions are a form of communication between humans-reviewer and author need to be able to have a genuine technical dialogue.”

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

The authors mitigate the construct-validity threat by keeping a clear distinction between observed policy mechanisms and inferred governance issues, and by presenting the framework as an empirically grounded conceptual tool that can be revised.

“We mitigate this by keeping a clear distinction between the policy mechanisms we observed and the governance issues we infer from them, and by presenting the framework as an empirically grounded conceptual tool that can be revised as OSS AI governance evolves.”

May combine two claims.

Some project policies lacked formal documentation, and in those cases the most consequential statements often appeared in informal channels such as blog posts or public statements.

“In such cases, the most consequential statements often appeared in informal channels, such as blog posts or public statements (e.g., curl and LadybirdBrowser).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Consequently, regulated policies are defined by conditionality (e.g., 'if you use AI...').

“Consequently, regulated policies are defined by conditionality (e.g., 'if you use AI...').”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The acceptability principles are organized around the three stakeholders of OSS contribution governance: the project, the contributor, and the maintainer.

“The acceptability principles are organized around the three stakeholders of OSS contribution governance: the project, the contributor, and the maintainer.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The main construct-validity threat is the conceptual leap from policy evidence to framework construction.

“The main construction-validity threat is the conceptual leap from policy evidence to framework construction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Fent et al. provide a roadmap and cite the importance of studying how governance in OSS communities is adapting to the use of AI.

“Fent et al provide a roadmap of [5].The cite the importance of studying how Governance in OSS communities is adapting to the use of AI.”

• cites [5]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Disclosing that AI was used, and how, is useful for transparency, but insufficient as a signal of contributor ownership.

“Disclosing that AI was used, and how, is useful for transparency, but insufficient as a signal of contributor ownership.”

May combine two claims.

This makes the bar conditional: AI is tolerated if understanding accompanies it, rejected if it does not.

“This makes the bar conditional: AI is tolerated if understanding accompanies it, rejected if it does not.”

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

The study covered only OSS projects that had adapted their contribution policies to AI, so it is unknown whether projects that have not adapted are also struggling with AI.

“Because we have studied only projects that have adapted their policies to AI, we do not know if those who have not are also struggling with AI and accept them.”

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

A policy that filters aggressively may protect maintainers while discouraging future contributors, whereas a policy that remains too open may preserve access while exhausting review capacity.

“Their balance is difficult to achieve: a policy that filters aggressively may protect maintainers while discouraging future contributors, whereas a policy that remains too open may preserve access while exhausting review capacity.”

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

Contributors who use AI to generate code they cannot explain are not developing the skills that make future contributions valuable, and they are consuming maintainer time that would otherwise go to genuine mentorship.

“Contributors who use AI to generate code they cannot explain are not developing the skills that make future contributions valuable, and they are consuming maintainer time that would otherwise go to genuine mentorship.”