When I think about this passage alongside the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), Cook’s emphasis on context feels even more urgent. Terry Cook argues that records are shaped by the functional and structural environments in which they are created. In an AI-driven world, where systems generate, sort, and analyze massive volumes of data automatically, understanding that broader context becomes essential. AI can process content at scale, but without contextual grounding, it risks misinterpreting records or reinforcing surface-level patterns. I see AI as both an opportunity and a challenge for appraisal theory. On one hand, AI tools can help identify patterns across enormous bureaucratic systems, making macro-level analysis more feasible. They can cluster records, detect trends, and even suggest appraisal priorities. This could strengthen Cook’s top-down approach by giving archivists analytical support in mapping institutional functions. On the other hand, AI systems are trained on existing data, which may already reflect institutional biases and power imbalances. If archivists rely too heavily on AI-driven selection, we risk automating those biases. Cook stresses that archivists must actively and consciously shape the archival record. AI does not remove that responsibility—it arguably heightens it. I cannot simply defer judgment to an algorithm.

When I think about Terry Cook’s macro-appraisal approach, I appreciate how it forces me to step back and look at the bigger picture. Instead of just asking which individual records might be useful someday, I have to consider which institutions, functions, and power structures actually shape society. I like that this approach acknowledges that archives are not neutral and that archivists play an active role in shaping collective memory. It feels more honest and socially aware. At the same time, I find Cook’s model demanding. It requires deep knowledge of organizations and social systems, which can be time-consuming and complex. I also worry about the level of subjectivity involved. If I am deciding which societal functions matter most, my own biases could influence what gets preserved. That level of responsibility is powerful, but also risky.