What does the AI dimension change about the §5 asymmetry?

A subsidiary question under Q-0007 (Tier 3 ↔ AI relationship). §5.6 framed the architectural decision as one-sided hedging: pay a rounding error to avoid a billion-dollar tail. §10.4 asks what changes when the AI dimension is included.

The answer is C-0039. The AI dimension converts the §5 asymmetry from one-sided hedging into two-sided positioning: the same investment that hedges the §5 liability also captures the upside C-0008 describes (AI-ready data substrate as structural byproduct of Tier 3 deployment).

Institutions that deploy Tier 3 in 2026 hold three positions simultaneously:

1. The preservation posture documented in §§2-9 — the §5 liability hedged.
2. The verification posture documented in §8 — compliance answerable on inspection.
3. The AI-readiness posture documented in §10 — the data substrate institutional AI strategy depends on.

Institutions that do not deploy it cede each of those positions in the same operational year, on infrastructure they already operate at substantial idle capacity (C-0006).

C-0027's "billion-dollar tail vs rounding-error fix" understates the case once the AI dimension is included — the prevention investment is positive-value on the cost side and positive-value on the upside side. This is the synthesis Claim of §10 and the connective tissue between §§5-9 and the implementation regime developed in §11.