Public capital is visible. AMR attribution is not.

Public records show investments in laboratories, surveillance and One Health capabilities that are clearly relevant to antimicrobial resistance.

But relevance is not the same as AMR funding attribution.

A useful example appears in Sri Lanka's current One Health and pandemic-preparedness financing environment. Public Pandemic Fund material records an approved amount of approximately US$18.4 million for Sri Lanka's integrated One Health pandemic preparedness and response programme. The listed priority areas include surveillance, laboratory systems and workforce development.

Those areas matter for AMR. The same public project material includes antimicrobial-resistance surveillance planning across livestock, poultry, animal feeds and wastewater. WHO Sri Lanka has also described Pandemic Fund-supported work on wastewater and environmental surveillance as part of Sri Lanka's public-health intelligence capacity.

That is a strong relevance signal.

It is not, by itself, a defensible basis for counting the full US$18.4 million as AMR financing.

The attribution gap.

The wider grant covers surveillance, laboratory systems, One Health human resources and related preparedness capabilities. AMR appears within that landscape, but the public evidence reviewed does not isolate an AMR-specific budget line equal to the full programme amount.

Counting the full envelope as AMR capital would overstate what the evidence proves. Counting it as zero AMR relevance would understate what the evidence shows.

The correct state is narrower and more useful: public capital is visible; AMR attribution remains unresolved.

How AgentBrain treats the signal.

At every step the finding is classified as verified, inferred or unknown. That prevents a relevant health-system investment from becoming an unsupported AMR funding claim.

Why this matters.

AMR financing discussions often need a number. But the number is only useful if its construction is clear. A project can support capabilities that matter for AMR without every dollar being attributable to AMR. A public record can show AMR relevance without showing AMR-specific allocation. A missing budget line can indicate an attribution gap rather than a true funding gap.

This distinction changes the decision. It tells a funder, government or analyst what should be verified next: the component budget, the implementation record, the procurement trail or the institutional confirmation that separates AMR-specific activity from the broader preparedness envelope.