A Call for an AI Disability Standard

The first paper in this series argued that general-purpose AI can function as assistive technology. It does so when a person with a disability uses it to increase, maintain, or improve a functional capability. The second asked what follows when an institution writes a rule against that use, and found six kinds of policy that punish it. This paper holds that the protections against that punishment already exist, in the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504, the General Data Protection Regulation, the Employment Equality Directive, and now Spain's Ley 4/2026. What the person lacks is a way to invoke them that the next institution will recognize. The instrument it proposes is a notice in the form of a cease and desist. The letter is dated and written for a recipient who may never have thought of AI as an accommodation. It names the protection, names the policy or action that conflicts with it, states that AI is this person's disability tool, and explains why. It then puts the recipient on notice that any further adverse action is taken knowingly. The paper also offers a first-notice variant in the same elements, for a recipient that has an accommodation channel and has not yet acted, and asks which register works. Behind the notice sits a validation layer built the way the parking placard is built. The recipient can see the person's standing without opening a medical file. The paper's purpose is to remove punishment for using AI as a disability tool. That punishment takes three forms: refusal, algorithmic punishment, and the harm of being made to label the work as AI. It ties each punishment to the protection it offends. It builds the validation from disability systems already in use rather than inventing one. Those systems are the Social Security Administration's functional definition for eligibility, SSDI receipt as the proposed automatic qualifier with other determinations named as candidates, the ABLE account's certification with documentation kept by the person, the parking placard's entitlement-only face and recognition rule, the TSA Notification Card's discreet presentation, and HIPAA's minimum necessary principle for the notice itself. The Social Security Administration supplies the gate and the methods the validation reuses. The ADA supplies the comparator, most people in the general population, and the purpose: a person who can work is not refused the tool that lets them compete. Where those systems conflict or fall silent, the paper puts the question to the disability community and the public instead of settling it. The law is mapped actor by actor, with what triggers each duty and what the actor must know before it attaches. The notice has force today against covered employers, funded programs, and public entities, where the sender is a person the statute protects and the need is communicated. Every European controller within the Regulation's scope is bound by the GDPR, not by the letter, in how it handles the disability data the notice carries. In Spain the notice reaches any recipient of the right to use support products without forced deactivation. Force means a duty to consider and respond under the statute's terms, never a duty to grant the means named. Against platforms and publishers, where the second and third punishments run at scale, no federal or Union-wide law binds the recipient to honor the notice. There the notice builds a record, and in the Union a platform's restriction decision already carries the statement-of-reasons and complaint route the Digital Services Act gives. The paper claims nothing more. Each notice served, with its dated response, is also a record of how far refusal, penalty, and compelled disclosure reach. The paper asks those who serve notice to report what comes back. AI glasses are the stress test because one device carries every strand at once. The register throughout is exploratory, and the author is not a lawyer.