The lead filer, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is a faith-based advocacy organization whose proposal is framed around contested political and ethical judgments about U.S. defense, immigration enforcement, and foreign policy rather than neutral fiduciary risk management — a hallmark of ideological progressive filing. Under the voting policy, proposals from ideological filers are voted against regardless of surface framing, because they serve advocacy goals rather than the financial interests of ordinary shareholders. Even setting filer identity aside, Palantir's board credibly explains that a mandatory independent third-party report would be severely limited by classified government contracts and binding confidentiality obligations, meaning the deliverable would not provide material additional information to investors.

The lead filer, Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, is a faith-based advocacy organization whose proposal reflects the same ideological progressive framework as Proposal 4 — using human rights language to press political positions on immigration enforcement, military contracting, and surveillance rather than making a neutral fiduciary argument. Per the voting policy, proposals from ideological filers on either side of the political spectrum are voted against because they serve advocacy rather than shareholder interests. Additionally, the board's opposition statement explains that a formal Human Rights Impact Assessment would be legally impossible to complete in a meaningful way for classified and confidential government work, meaning the report would impose cost without delivering material investor value.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund is a mainstream institutional pension fund — exactly the type of credible, fiduciary-motivated filer the policy treats seriously. The ask is purely a disclosure request: the company would report what corporate funds, if any, are spent to influence elections or candidates. This is the lowest-bar category under the policy framework. Palantir derives 55% of its revenues from government clients and has stated an intent to grow that share further; undisclosed political spending in that context creates a specific, material conflict-of-interest risk for ordinary shareholders who cannot assess whether spending supports or undermines the company's government contracting business. The board's opposition argument — that existing legal disclosure requirements are sufficient — is weak given that peers such as IBM and Microsoft voluntarily provide this disclosure, meaning Palantir is an outlier and the incremental cost is minimal.