Crawl4AI is directly in the path where this evidence is most useful: public URL -> fetched/extracted content -> RAG/agent/data pipeline. The library already exposes custom strategies/hooks, and the Cloud API/MCP path returns structured page results.
Would you consider an optional provider-neutral enrichment hook that attaches a signed source-rights observation to each page result?
The external provider would receive URL + intended purpose and return timestamped evidence of machine-readable source-rights/TDM declarations. The crawler would not make a legal decision; the receipt would simply travel with result metadata so downstream RAG/agent policy can decide what to do.
I’m building AcqPath as one provider, but the useful abstraction is generic: rights_evidence_provider -> normalized receipt/digest in crawl result metadata.
If that direction fits, I can sketch a minimal hook/result-field contract that works for both self-hosted Crawl4AI and Cloud without making AcqPath a required dependency.
Crawl4AI is directly in the path where this evidence is most useful: public URL -> fetched/extracted content -> RAG/agent/data pipeline. The library already exposes custom strategies/hooks, and the Cloud API/MCP path returns structured page results.
Would you consider an optional provider-neutral enrichment hook that attaches a signed source-rights observation to each page result?
The external provider would receive URL + intended purpose and return timestamped evidence of machine-readable source-rights/TDM declarations. The crawler would not make a legal decision; the receipt would simply travel with result metadata so downstream RAG/agent policy can decide what to do.
I’m building AcqPath as one provider, but the useful abstraction is generic: rights_evidence_provider -> normalized receipt/digest in crawl result metadata.
If that direction fits, I can sketch a minimal hook/result-field contract that works for both self-hosted Crawl4AI and Cloud without making AcqPath a required dependency.