> The terminology is used outside of legal contexts in ways that transcend borders.

To clarify, the FBI and DHS publications I cited are not actually using the term in a "legal context", strictly speaking. Presently, US federal criminal law does not use the term CSAM; if the FBI or DHS arrest someone for "CSAM", they might use that term in a press release describing the arrest, but the formal criminal charges will be expressed without using it.

> To the best of my knowledge, the terms "CSAM" and "CSEM" were coined outside of legal contexts, for the purposes I described above.

This is where I doubt you – did the people who originally coined the term "CSAM" intend to exclude AI-generated images from the term's scope? You are assuming they did, but I'm not convinced you are right. I suspect you may be projecting your own views about how the term should be defined on to the people who originated it.

> This is where I doubt you – did the people who originally coined the term "CSAM" intend to exclude AI-generated images from the term's scope? You are assuming they did, but I'm not convinced you are right. I suspect you may be projecting your own views about how the term should be defined on to the people who originated it.

Knowing, as I do, the purpose (or at least the stated purpose) of coining the term—which, as I have very clearly stated, was to differentiate between situations where an actual real-life child is involved, vs those where none is: Yes, I am very confident that their intent would exclude AI-generated images. I can't see how any other conclusion could be drawn from what I've already said.