LLM02: condense final entry (v2)

[emmanuelgjr]

Condensed rewrite of LLM02 (Sensitive Information Disclosure) for readability — same risk coverage, tighter prose.

• High-impact content kept: 4-phase lifecycle model (training/inference/pipeline/observation), oversharing vs. persistence structural failures, all 7 risk sub-classes, tiered mitigations, attack scenarios.
• Trimmed: prose length (~328 → ~97 lines), reference list cut to the 16 highest-value sources (primary research + the most load-bearing incident reports), dropped the framework cross-reference table for brevity.

@kenhuangus — requesting your review, especially on whether the reference cuts leave the entry adequately sourced.

[KeystoneSmartQuotes]

Thank you for the condensed rewrite. The four-phase description, the seven sub-class taxonomy, and the eleven-scenario spine all carry through cleanly, and the prose is materially easier to read at -97 lines.

One item worth flagging before merge, in case it warrants a second pass: the diff drops the entire Related Frameworks and Taxonomies table (ASI, ASI06, Agent Memory Guard, five ATLAS rows, two ATT&CK rows, four CWE rows, NIST AI 600-1, NIST SP 800-218A, seven DSGAI rows, EU AI Act, GDPR, HIPAA, CCPA/CPRA, ISO/IEC 42001).

PR #86 (2026-07-05) and PR #89 (2026-07-05, @stefanoamorelli) standardized this Framework | Reference | Relevance table across all nine other 2026/final/ entries as a release-wide cross-reference anchor. Under this PR, LLM02 becomes the only 2026 final entry without one, and readers navigating from a cross-referenced framework (for example arriving at LLM02 from an ATLAS AML.T0024.001 lookup or a DSGAI11 back-reference) lose the round-trip.

If the concern is that LLM02's reference load is already heavy, a possible middle path is to keep the framework table (which is short and structural) while continuing to trim inline citations in the prose (which is where the length lived). The table's value to enterprise readers doing standards crosswalks is disproportionate to its line count.

If a formal Track B feedback issue on this specific point would be more useful than a PR-review comment, happy to file one instead.

[emmanuelgjr]

@KeystoneSmartQuotes thank you for reviewing the entry. Related Frameworks and Taxonomies were left out on purpose following project leads' guidance on brevity.

I prefer to leave it out, unless it's defined as something all entries must have.

There's an agreement among entry leads that it would fit better as an appendix.