Let me analyze what's already filed vs. what this session's substance adds.

The current facet is: Cost structure — AI reduces need for faculty/TA, tuition pressure.

From the filed inventory (Note 7/8's comprehensive inventory), the cost-structure claims already filed:
- "AI cuts teaching payroll first; admin layer captures savings"
- "Marginal-cost collapse: AI tutoring/grading pushes per-student instruction cost toward near zero"
- "Brand-strong institutions scale enrollment without new buildings (Georgia Tech OMSCS model)"
- "Cost-plus pricing dies at the bottom: AI-native providers at ~1/10th price force unselective regionals into price deflation; selective flagships hold or raise sticker because price signals scarcity"
- "Teaching labor only ~25-30% of operating cost; binding costs are fixed (plant, admin, athletics, debt service)"
- "Cost structure bifurcates the system faster than it shrinks it"

Claim A: For the first time since 1945, the ~70-75% personnel share of university operating budgets is structurally compressible. AI tutors/graders/advisors substitute for instructional labor layer (~40% of academic staffing), opening first genuine cost-reduction pathway since Baumol cost disease. Institutions re-architecting around AI can cut cost-per-degree 30-50%; incumbents bolting AI on save almost nothing because tenure/legacy salaries amortize over decades.

Check against filed: Filed says "teaching labor only ~25-30% of operating cost" — the session claims personnel share is ~70-75% and instructional labor is ~40% of academic staffing. These are compatible (all personnel = 70-75%, instructional labor subset). The filed claims don't include:
- The Baumol framing ("first genuine cost-reduction pathway since cost disease locked in" / "first time since 1945")
- The re-architect vs. bolt-on distinction: incumbents that merely bolt AI on save almost nothing; re-architectors cut cost-per-degree 30-50%
- The tenure/legacy salary amortization as the mechanism making incumbent savings illusory

Claim B: Cost compression alone won't reach sticker price — savings historically absorbed by research cross-subsidy, athletics, admin bloat; tenure obligations amortize 20+ years so incumbents can't pass cuts to tuition. Real tuition collapse comes from demand side: AI hollowing entry-level jobs cuts degree wage premium starting mid-2030s. By ~2040, bifurcated pricing regime: elite brands hold price (positional good), mid-tier tuition falls 30-60% toward cost-based floors, tuition-dependent privates/small publics (Northeast, Midwest, low-growth regions outside SEC/sun-belt) face pincer of rigid costs + falling ROI and merge/close. Growth-state flagships (SEC footprint, TX, FL, AZ) get smooth landing: demand tailwinds + legislative capital to re-architect before pincer closes.

Check against filed:
- "Savings absorbed by research cross-subsidy, athletics, admin" — partially filed ("admin layer captures savings"; "binding costs are fixed (plant, admin, athletics, debt service)"). The research cross-subsidy breaking is filed under research function ("Classic cross-subsidy breaks (undergrad tuition funding labs)").
- "Tuition pressure comes from demand side not cost side" — Note 8 (previous turn) apparently filed "Tuition pressure then comes from competition, not cost cuts — AI-native, competency-based providers at ~1/10th price..." Wait, that was in the Note 8 text shown in the prompt's earlier structure. Actually looking at the inventory in Notes 7/8: "Cost-plus pricing dies at the bottom: AI-native providers at ~1/10th price force unselective regionals into price deflation" — that's supply-side competition driving price deflation. The session claims the tuition collapse comes from DEMAND side (wage premium erosion), not competition. That's a different mechanism! Filed: competition from AI-native providers. Session: demand-side ROI collapse because AI eats the entry-level jobs the degree was priced against.

- "Mid-tier tuition falls 30-60% toward cost-based floors" — NEW number (Unverified). Filed has mid-market enrollment contraction 25-40% and BA premium compression 30-50%, but not tuition decline 30-60%.
- "Elite brands hold price (positional good)" — filed ("