A detail that blocks me: the notion of "contributes to the possibility" is an overly permissive formulation for rigorous reasoning. For a legal relationship to be established, an explicit mechanism is needed, a chain of causality or conditionality. Without this level of detail, the relationship remains speculative and cannot be accepted as a solid basis. For example, if research priorities include a specific mandate for the Legal Services Board to explore AI, the contribution would be concrete. Until the definition of "contributes to the possibility" is clarified with a clear legal example, no conclusion can be drawn.