[hoistbypetard]

As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols" to mean that all three were required.

Why do you read that to mean just one is required?

[rahkiin]

The first comma is ambiguous when reading it very precisely without prejudice.

It is a list of 4 items. This should not have been written like this to stand up nicely in courts and gives way to interpretation now.

[retsibsi]

(I'm not a lawyer, but) I don't see the ambiguity. It's a normal grammatical sentence if parsed this way:

The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with

- applicable law

- operational requirements

- and well established safety and oversight protocols.

Whereas if I try to parse it as a list of 4 items, it's not grammatical:

The Department of War may use the AI System

- for all lawful purposes

- consistent with applicable law

- operational requirements

- and well-established safety and oversight protocols.

[piker]

This is the correct reading.