How can one report on funding outcomes, which are surface manifestations, be taken as definitive insight into the full viability of an entire regulatory system like the AI Act?
This creates a misleading feedback loop: by only observing funded ventures, we miss the silent failures of promising startups that never even enter the funding pipeline due to prohibitive compliance costs, just like students who drop out before the exam.
The analysis focuses on what is, ignoring the bottlenecks and second-order effects on those who could have been.
It's like evaluating a school system solely by the success of its top graduates, completely overlooking the vast majority who struggle or drop out due to systemic issues like overcrowded classrooms or lack of resources.