. We need to preserve HTML structure. Also translate meta description.
We'll produce JSON with title, content (HTML), and meta.description.
Let's translate carefully.
Title: "US Commission Warns China's Data Dominance Gives It AI Edge" -> "美国委员会警告：中国的数据主导地位赋予其人工智能优势" or something like that. But we should keep "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" as proper noun, maybe translate as "美中经济与安全审查委员会" but it's a specific name, we can keep as "美国国会美中经济与安全审查委员会" or just "美中经济与安全审查委员会". Since it's a proper noun, we can keep in English? The instruction says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" so we should keep "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" in English? But it's a commission name, maybe we can translate? The instruction says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" so we should keep the name as is. But for readability, we might translate the description. Actually, we'll keep the commission name as is in English, but we can translate "US Commission" as "美国委员会" in the title? The title says "US Commission" but it's referring to that commission. We'll translate "US Commission" as "美国委员会" but then the full name appears in content. Let's decide: In title, we can say "美国委员会" but it's ambiguous. Better to translate the whole title: "美国委员会警告：中国数据主导地位赋予其AI优势" but we need to keep proper nouns? The title has "US Commission" which is a proper noun? It's a commission, but we can translate "US" as "美国" and "Commission" as "委员会". But the full name is "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission". We'll keep that in content. For title, we can translate as "美国委员会警告：中国数据主导地位使其在AI领域占优" or something. Let's be precise.
Let's translate the content paragraph by paragraph.
First paragraph: "The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission has issued a blunt warning: China's artificial intelligence advantage is rooted in its control of data. In a new assessment, the commission says Beijing's AI strategy leans heavily on industrial data and open-source models, a combination that now challenges the foundations of US policy."
Translation: "美中经济与安全审查委员会发出直白警告：中国的人工智能优势源于其对数据的掌控。在一项新评估中，该委员会表示，北京的人工智能战略严重依赖工业数据和开源模型，这种组合如今对美国政策的基础构成挑战。"
We need to keep the name "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" in English? But we can translate it? The instruction says keep proper nouns, but it's a commission name, so we can keep it as is. However, for readability, we might translate it as "美中经济与安全审查委员会" but that's a translation. The instruction says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" - so we should keep "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" as is. But in the article, it's mentioned multiple times. We'll keep it in English. But in the translation, we can also use the English name. Let's see the original: "The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" - we'll keep that as is. So in the translation, we'll write "美中经济与安全审查委员会" or just keep the English? Actually, in Chinese news, they often translate it as "美中经济与安全审查委员会" but that is a translation. Since the instruction says keep proper nouns, I'll keep the English name. But the rest of the sentence can be translated. Let's do: "美中经济与安全审查委员会发出直白警告：中国的人工智能优势源于其数据掌控。" But that uses a translated name. The instruction says keep proper nouns, so we should keep the original English name. So we'll write: "The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission发出直白警告：中国的人工智能优势源于其数据掌控。" But that mixes English and Chinese. That's common in Chinese news to keep the English name for organizations. So we'll do that.
Actually, in Chinese media, they often translate the name. But to be safe, we'll keep the English name as is. Let's check the instruction: "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" - so we keep "US-China Economic and Security Review Commission" as is. So we'll write: "The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission 发出直白警告：..." That is acceptable.
But in the title, we have "US Commission" which is not the full name. We can translate "US Commission" as "美国委员会" but that is not a proper noun. So we can translate it. For consistency, we'll translate the title as "美国委员会警告：中国数据主导地位使其拥有AI优势" but the commission is not just US, it's US-China. But it's a US commission. So we can say "美国委员会" but it might be ambiguous. Let's do: "美国委员会警告：中国数据主导地位赋予其AI优势" - that's fine.
Now for the content, we'll keep the English name for the commission.
Second paragraph: "Why the Commission Sounds the Alarm" - heading: "为何委员会拉响警报" or "委员会为何拉响警报" - but we'll translate as "委员会为何拉响警报" since we keep the name.
Then the paragraph: "The commission, a federal body that tracks the economic and security implications of the US-China relationship, argues that China's approach is not just about algorithms or computing power. The real edge, it says, comes from data dominance. Chinese companies and state agencies collect vast amounts of industrial data from manufacturing, logistics, and energy systems. That data feeds AI models in ways the US does not currently replicate."
Translation: "该委员会是一个跟踪美中关系经济与安全影响的联邦机构，它认为中国的做法不仅仅是算法或计算能力的问题。它表示，真正的优势来自数据主导地位。中国企业和国家机构从制造、物流和能源系统中收集大量工业数据。这些数据以美国目前无法复制的方式为AI模型提供支持。"
We need to keep "AI" as is, or translate as "人工智能"? We'll use "AI" as is, since it's common. But we can also use "人工智能" for clarity. We'll use "AI" in the article as it's common.
Next: "Open-source models add another layer. By adopting and adapting publicly available AI frameworks, China can accelerate development without starting from scratch. The commission sees this as a deliberate strategy to compress the innovation cycle, letting China close gaps quickly and push ahead in sectors where data is abundant."
Translation: "开源模型又增加了一层。通过采用和调整公开可用的人工智能框架，中国可以在不从头开始的情况下加速发展。委员会认为这是一种刻意压缩创新周期的策略，让中国迅速缩小差距，并在数据丰富的领域领先。"
Next: "A Challenge to US Policy" heading: "对美国政策的挑战" or "对美政策的挑战" - we'll do "对美国政策的挑战".
Paragraph: "The warning is not just about technology. The commission states that China's data-driven AI strategy directly challenges US policy assumptions. Washington has focused on export controls, chip restrictions, and research funding. But if the real battle is over data, those tools may not be enough. The commission calls for a broader strategic adjustment, one that accounts for data access, industrial adoption, and the role of open-source ecosystems."
Translation: "这一警告不仅关乎技术。委员会表示，中国数据驱动的人工智能战略直接挑战了美国的政策假设。华盛顿一直专注于出口管制、芯片限制和研究资金。但如果真正的竞争在于数据，这些工具可能不够。委员会呼吁进行更广泛的战略调整，需要考虑数据获取、产业应用以及开源生态系统的作用。"
Next: "It also flags a timing problem. The US has been slow to treat industrial data as a strategic asset. While American tech giants lead in consumer data, the industrial sector remains fragmented. China, by contrast, has integrated data collection across state-owned enterprises and private firms, creating a seamless pipeline from factory floor to AI model."
Translation: "它还指出了时机问题。美国在将工业数据视为战略资产方面一直行动迟缓。虽然美国科技巨头在消费者数据方面领先，但工业部门仍然分散。相比之下，中国在国有企业和私营企业中整合了数据收集，从工厂车间到AI模型形成了无缝管道。"
Next: "What the Commission Wants Next" heading: "委员会接下来想要什么" or "委员会下一步要求" - we'll do "委员会下一步的期望" but better "委员会接下来想做什么" - let's do "委员会接下来的要求" - but we'll keep simple: "委员会下一步计划" - actually the heading is "What the Commission Wants Next" so we can translate as "委员会接下来的目标" or "委员会下一步要求" - I'll use "委员会接下来的要求".
Paragraph: "The commission does not offer a single fix. Instead, it urges policymakers to rethink how the US competes. That could mean new incentives for data sharing, a clearer legal framework for industrial data, or more support for open-source AI projects that keep the
