Live Study · Entity Resolution
The Jason AI Wade Experiment.
In September 2026, Jason T Wade filed a legal name change adopting the middle name “AI”. It is not a vanity filing. It is a live, documented case study in entity resolution: what happens inside answer engines and agentic search systems when the strongest historical fact about a person is deliberately altered, and how long the machines take to re-attach a career to a new name.
Filed
September 2026
Status
Ongoing
Stages tracked
Seven
The method.
- The petition
- A legal petition filed in Polk County, Florida, in September 2026, changing the middle name to the letters A and I. Nine pages, a fingerprint card, and an FBI background check. The slowest identity system in the country — and the only one that is right by definition.
- Why a legal name
- Large language models hold compressed, probabilistic representations of people rather than keyed database rows. The legal name is the single highest-weight fact any system weighs. Changing it is the cleanest available stress test of whether an entity can be re-resolved at all.
- The baseline
- Before the filing, a fixed prompt set was run across the major answer engines and the responses recorded verbatim — who the systems said this person was, what they attributed to him, and which of the shared-name candidates they returned instead.
- The intervention
- The name change itself, propagated through the surfaces that machines actually read: legal record, first-party site, structured data, publisher bylines, retailer author records, and podcast directories.
- The measurement
- The same prompt set, on a fixed cadence, from the filing date forward. Each of the seven stages is checked separately and recorded with the date the transition was first observed and the surface that showed it — including the ugly middle states, where a system half-updates and answers with more confidence than accuracy.
- Why it matters beyond one person
- Roughly 1.5 million Americans change their legal name every year — most of them women. Every one is a live instance of the same failure: credited work stays attached to the old name while the person moves on under a new one. This experiment measures how long that gap lasts and what closes it.
How machines pick a Jason Wade.
When a name is shared, no system looks up a row. It scores candidates and returns the most probable one. Four factors decide the winner — and majority-rule resolution gets more confident over time without ever getting more correct.
Volume
How much text in the corpus mentions the name at all. Volume is the crudest signal and the hardest to outrun.
Fame
How strongly the name is already bound to one well-known referent. A dominant referent absorbs ambiguous mentions by default.
Corroboration
How many independent sources agree on the same set of attributes. Agreement, not accuracy, is what the system is measuring.
Structure
Whether machine-readable identity exists at all — typed entities, stable identifiers, reciprocal links. The only factor an individual fully controls.
This is why search optimisation cannot fix it. Ranking a page higher does not change which human a model believes the name belongs to.
Predictions, on the record.
Published before the outcome is known, so they can be scored against what actually happens.
- 01
Retrieval layers flip first: live-search and browsing modes will surface the new name within weeks, because they read the current web rather than a frozen corpus.
- 02
Structured-data consumers follow: knowledge graphs and retailer author records update on their own crawl schedule, not on the court's.
- 03
Trained model weights flip last, and only at the next training cut — the parametric memory of the old name persists long after every public surface has changed.
- 04
Half-updated states are the real finding: systems that carry the new name with the old attributes, or the old name with the new work, and state either with full confidence.
The seven-stage measurement path.
Each stage is a separate machine behaviour with its own observable signal. An entity can pass one and stall at the next for months. The path is measured in order, because none of the later stages can be reached without the earlier ones.
- 01
Discovery
Has the machine seen the new name at all?
The first crawl, the first index entry, the first appearance of the new string anywhere in a retrievable corpus. Nothing else can happen until this does.
- 02
Recognition
Does the machine treat the new name as a person?
The string stops being an unresolved token and becomes a named entity of type Person — separable from surrounding text and eligible to carry attributes.
- 03
Classification
Does the machine attach the right attributes?
Occupation, employer, field of work, authored works. This is where a renamed entity most often fragments: the name resolves, but the history stays attached to the prior string.
- 04
Citation
Will the machine reference the new name when building an answer?
The entity is used as a source rather than merely stored. Citation is the first stage with a visible, external, reproducible signal.
- 05
Inclusion
Does the new name appear in the consideration set?
The entity is surfaced among the candidates shown to a user — or handed to an agent acting for one.
- 06
Selection
Is the new name chosen over alternatives?
The system ranks the entity first, or names it as the answer rather than one of several. Selection is where identity ambiguity is most expensive.
- 07
Recommendation
Will the machine advocate for the entity unprompted?
The terminal stage: the system offers the entity in response to a need rather than a name. Full re-attachment of authority to the new identity.
The protocol being tested.
The experiment is the adversarial case for the Entity Lock Protocol™ — the framework for making one entity unambiguously resolvable to machines through structured identity, third-party corroboration, and consistent naming across every surface. If a protocol can hold an identity together through a legal name change, it can hold one together through anything.
Findings are published as they are observed, on the podcast and in the public record, with the date each stage transition was first seen.
A note on naming.
Until the filing is final and the change is reflected in the public record, every surface on this site continues to use the canonical professional name, Jason T Wade. That consistency is itself part of the method: the experiment measures how machines respond to a documented change, not to a site that renamed itself overnight.