Imagine you're renovating a house and each contractor who works on it files updated building plans — but each new set quietly deletes some rooms from the blueprints while adding others. The total page count looks the same, so the city inspector gives it a pass. But the actual documentation of what's behind the walls is degrading. That's what's happening with language model transparency disclosures. This paper makes a straightforward but important claim: successive releases of language models from the same family do not consistently preserve the pretraining disclosures of their predecessors. The authors audited 41 model entries across 17 families (Llama, OLMo, Gemma, Qwen, and others) using 24 pretraining-related indicators drawn from the 2025 Foundation Model Transparency Index. Across 24 adjacent release-pair comparisons in 10 families, scores decreased in 11 cases, increased in 6, and stayed flat in 7. The net: 38 indicator losses versus 28 gains. The most striking finding isn't the overall trend — it's the masking effect. OLMo-2 and OLMo-3 receive identical aggregate scores, but three indicators flip from disclosed to undisclosed while three others go the other direction. Llama-3.1 nominally improves over Llama-2, but two data-related criteria that were previously satisfied quietly drop out. Aggregate scores create an illusion of continuity when the underlying disclosure profile is shifting underneath. This is measurement decay hidden behind stable top-line numbers. Methodologically, this is a document-based audit, not an experiment. The authors read release documentation — model cards, technical reports, blog posts — and scored each model against the FMTI's binary indicators. There's no new model, no new benchmark, no new architecture. The contribution is entirely observational: building a structured ledger of what was said and what stopped being said. The approach is labor-intensive but inherently limited by what companies choose to publish and how consistently audit coders interpret ambiguous disclosures. The persistent gaps are telling. Corpus composition and training compute remain the most chronically undisclosed categories. Companies are getting better at describing model architecture and training procedures while getting worse — or at least no better — at revealing what data went in and how much energy was burned. This pattern is consistent with strategic disclosure: share what builds brand (architecture innovation), withhold what creates liability (data sourcing, compute cost). The architecture of this study is less 'research breakthrough' and more 'accounting audit.' That's not a criticism — the field badly needs this kind of systematic bookkeeping. But it means the contribution depends entirely on the quality and consistency of the coding scheme, and on whether FMTI's 24 indicators actually capture what matters about pretraining transparency. The authors acknowledge this is a snapshot, not a causal model; they cannot tell you why disclosures disappear, only that they do. The practical takeaway is simple and useful: if you're evaluating foundation model transparency, don't look at aggregate scores across releases. Track indicator-level changes. A model family that appears to maintain or improve its transparency score may be silently dropping disclosures in areas that matter to your use case — particularly around training data provenance and compute, which are exactly the categories most relevant to regulatory compliance, bias auditing, and environmental accounting.
