Direct answer
Release 1.12.0 preserves the existing 31 bounded source reviews without claiming a new external verification round. It records a direct handoff of 32 reports as exact duplicates of the then-existing 48-report archive, so no second source copy or competing authority was created. The ledger records 64 reviewed sources, 20 explicitly unrechecked sources, and 0 blocked sources. Exact report, package, artwork, translation, and Advanced Persona authority bytes remain outside the new implementation derivatives. Exact custody for sixteen additional AI-governance reports is recorded separately in the 1.12.0 intake receipt, expanding the immutable archive to 64 reports without claiming that those new report assertions have already passed the established 194-unit evidence review.
Source freshness is separated from source authority.
A primary court record, official technical standard, peer-reviewed study, provider document, and civil-society report have different authority even when all are recently retrieved. The counts below describe review state only.
Reviewed online
Source identity and the named support scope were checked on 2 September 2026.
Not reopened
Known locators remain in the ledger without a new online review event.
Blocked or unavailable
These records remain explicit gaps rather than being counted as verified.
What was actually reopened
Each event records the source, date, method, checked scope, and limit. The event identifier remains stable for later correction or supersession.
V-Dem Institute — Democracy Reports
REV-2026-09-02-001Confirmed the current Democracy Reports publication surface and the 2026 report used for the worldwide freedom-of-expression trend statement.
Limit: The project confirmed source identity, current public availability, and the specific comparative trend used by the site. It did not independently reproduce V-Dem’s full statistical model or country coding.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Freedom House — Freedom on the Net
REV-2026-09-02-002Confirmed the Freedom on the Net 2025 report and the report-body count used by the worldwide overview: 28 of 72 assessed countries deteriorated and 17 improved.
Limit: The review confirms the source’s published comparative count and scope. It does not treat the 72-country study as a complete measure of every country or of cognitive liberty as a whole.
Conflict note: A contradictory summary snippet was not adopted; the project retained the figure stated in the report body and records the source-specific methodology boundary.
Access Now — #KeepItOn coalition
REV-2026-09-02-003Confirmed the coalition’s 2025 shutdown findings used on the worldwide page: at least 313 shutdowns across 52 countries.
Limit: Shutdown counts depend on the coalition’s definitions, measurement access, partner reporting, and attribution methods. They do not measure all forms of censorship.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
OONI — open measurement of internet censorship
REV-2026-09-02-004Confirmed OONI’s current project-level measurement scale used by the site: more than three billion measurements, approximately thirty thousand networks, and 245 countries and territories since 2012.
Limit: The review confirms the project’s published measurement coverage. Individual measurements require country, network, test, and anomaly-level interpretation before attributing censorship.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Academic Freedom Index
REV-2026-09-02-005Confirmed the 2026 update, its global comparative coverage, and the project’s five-indicator approach to academic freedom.
Limit: Composite scores and change estimates depend on expert coding, confidence intervals, edition boundaries, and the project’s published methodology.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UN Human Rights Committee — General Comment No. 34 on Article 19
REV-2026-09-02-006Confirmed General Comment No. 34 as the Human Rights Committee’s authoritative interpretive guidance on Article 19 freedoms of opinion and expression.
Limit: General Comment No. 34 is authoritative treaty-body guidance, but application to a specific legal dispute still requires jurisdictional and factual analysis.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UN Special Rapporteur — encryption and anonymity in digital communications
REV-2026-09-02-007Confirmed the 2015 Special Rapporteur report treating encryption and anonymity as enabling a protected zone for opinion and expression and applying legality, necessity, and proportionality to restrictions.
Limit: The report is expert UN guidance rather than a self-executing global statute. National implementation and later jurisprudence differ.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
OHCHR — Rabat Plan of Action
REV-2026-09-02-008Confirmed the Rabat Plan of Action and its high threshold for restricting incitement, including contextual evaluation of speaker, intent, content, extent, and likelihood.
Limit: The Rabat framework guides rights-respecting analysis; it does not erase jurisdiction-specific law or decide a case without evidence about context and intent.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
REV-2026-09-02-009Confirmed the UN Guiding Principles’ protect, respect, and remedy framework and the responsibility of businesses to conduct human-rights due diligence.
Limit: The Guiding Principles are globally influential standards, not a single directly enforceable legal code in every jurisdiction.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
REV-2026-09-02-010Confirmed the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence as a 2021 global standard adopted by 193 Member States and centered on human rights, proportionality, privacy, transparency, accountability, and human oversight.
Limit: Adoption establishes an international normative framework; implementation, enforcement, and national legal effect vary.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Internet Society — internet fragmentation resources
REV-2026-09-02-011Confirmed Internet Society’s framework describing fragmentation as divergence that can impair the open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet.
Limit: The framework supports architectural analysis, not attribution of a specific outage or policy to censorship without separate evidence.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Open Source AI Definition 1.0
REV-2026-09-02-012Confirmed Open Source AI Definition 1.0 and its requirements that users be able to use, study, modify, and share an AI system with access to the preferred form for modification.
Limit: The definition establishes an open-source standard; it does not by itself prove that a particular model or package conforms.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Global Network Initiative — Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy
REV-2026-09-02-013Confirmed the Global Network Initiative principles and implementation guidance on company responsibilities for freedom of expression and privacy when facing government restrictions or demands.
Limit: The principles are a governance commitment and assessment framework; participation or publication does not automatically prove complete operational compliance.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation
REV-2026-09-02-014Confirmed the Santa Clara Principles’ procedural commitments concerning understandable rules, notice, numbers, appeals, cultural competence, and transparency about state involvement in moderation.
Limit: The principles are a civil-society accountability benchmark rather than a universal binding legal rule.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UNESCO — Safety of Journalists
REV-2026-09-02-015Confirmed UNESCO’s current safety-of-journalists programme and its role in monitoring, capacity building, and implementation of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.
Limit: Programme materials support the global institutional framework; incident-level claims require separate source and jurisdiction review.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
UNESCO — Memory of the World Programme
REV-2026-09-02-016Confirmed the Memory of the World programme’s purpose of preserving, protecting, and improving access to documentary heritage.
Limit: The programme supports preservation principles and registers documentary heritage; it does not independently verify every archive or historical claim cited by the site.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Tor Project — censorship circumvention support
REV-2026-09-02-017Confirmed the Tor Project’s current censorship-circumvention support documentation and the project’s privacy and anti-censorship purpose.
Limit: First-party documentation establishes intended functionality and current support guidance; availability and effectiveness vary by network, device, threat model, and jurisdiction.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
Signal — protocol and cryptographic specifications
REV-2026-09-02-018Confirmed the current public Signal protocol specification index, including key-agreement and ratcheting specifications used to document end-to-end encryption architecture.
Limit: Specifications document protocol design. A particular implementation, deployment, endpoint, or operational practice requires separate verification.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
CLEAR Global — language access and crisis communication
REV-2026-09-02-019Confirmed CLEAR Global’s current public work on language access, multilingual communication, and language technology for crisis-affected and underserved communities.
Limit: The organization’s public record supports the importance of language access; project-specific effectiveness and local translation quality require separate evaluation.
Conflict note: No unresolved source-identity conflict found during this bounded review.
ACLU — the Constitution in the 100-mile border zone
REV-2026-09-02-020Confirmed that the ACLU page was updated June 8, 2026 and describes the federal government’s claimed 100-mile border-zone authority while stating that important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.
Limit: This is current U.S. civil-liberties guidance, not primary law, legal advice, or a worldwide standard. Statutes, regulations, facts, and circuit-specific precedent require separate review.
Conflict note: No source-identity conflict found. The implementation kit does not generalize this jurisdiction-specific example into a universal legal rule.
American Library Association — privacy guidelines for library management systems
REV-2026-09-02-021Confirmed guidance on library data ownership, clear policies, opt-in use, user access and deletion, collection minimization, non-perpetual retention, encryption, restricted reports, government-request procedures, API profiling risk, vendor audits, and incident-response planning.
Limit: The guidance was last revised in April 2022 and is professional guidance rather than binding law. Local legal duties, contract language, system behavior, and vendor security require independent review.
Conflict note: No source-identity conflict found. Its recommendations are labeled as professional guidance and do not override jurisdiction-specific law.
American Library Association — minors and online activity
REV-2026-09-02-022Confirmed the June 29, 2025 amended interpretation supporting minors’ expression and privacy, age-appropriate resources, safety education, limits on excessive filtering, noncommercial treatment of minors’ activity, and individual responses to misuse.
Limit: The interpretation is an ALA professional policy position, not a controlling legal rule in every library, school, or jurisdiction. Minors’ records and access rights require local legal analysis.
Conflict note: No source-identity conflict found. The library kit keeps youth safety, privacy, and local authority questions in separate layers.
Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines
REV-2026-09-02-023Confirmed the official September 11, 2025 guideline edition and its Page Quality and Needs Met framework, including page purpose, creator and site responsibility, reputation, E-E-A-T, YMYL, query meaning, locale, and user intent.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: Google states that individual rater judgments do not directly move pages and that the guidelines are not a complete ranking formula. The review does not infer undocumented ranking signals or guarantee discoverability.
Conflict note: The canonical raterhub locator resolves to Google’s current static PDF. No contradiction requiring public wording change was found.
IEEE 7000 standards family overview
REV-2026-09-02-024Confirmed the current IEEE Global Initiative 2.0 page, its continued IEEE 7000 Series awareness work, and its stated focus on toolkits, conformity and impact assessment, generative AI, and practical ethics.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The programme page describes standards activity and intended resources. It does not establish compliance, certification, safety, or rights-respecting behavior by any particular deployed system.
Conflict note: The original URL now redirects to the current IEEE programme page. The source remains a standards-family overview, not a product endorsement.
Ranking Digital Rights methodology
REV-2026-09-02-025Confirmed the current RDR methods surface and archive: an open methodology with 58 human-rights indicators in governance, freedom of expression, and privacy, expanded into more than 300 questions about transparency and normative practices.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: RDR primarily evaluates company commitments, disclosure, and governance. It does not by itself prove production behavior, hidden system operation, or the experience of every user in every jurisdiction.
Conflict note: The 2022 route is preserved as source identity while the current methods page is recorded as the review locator. The kit uses RDR as an accountability method, not operational proof.
On Neurorights
REV-2026-09-02-026Confirmed the 2021 peer-reviewed Frontiers article, its publication identity, and its conceptual review of neurorights, including cognitive liberty and related mental protections.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The article is scholarly analysis in a developing and contested field. It is not binding law and does not establish universal consensus or adoption of every proposed neuroright.
Conflict note: The PubMed Central locator was inaccessible to the review client, but the publisher full text and PDF resolved the source identity and scope without changing the original source URL.
Marthews and Tucker — Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior
REV-2026-09-02-027Confirmed the working paper’s authorship, eleven-country Google Trends design, April 29, 2015 dated copy, and reported decline in selected privacy-sensitive searching after publicity about government surveillance.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The analysis is observational, uses selected terms and aggregate search data, and cannot eliminate all alternative explanations or establish an effect for every person, topic, country, or surveillance system.
Conflict note: The SSRN record resolved, while the dated full text was reviewed through an accessible copy. The site preserves association and causal caveats.
Jon Penney — Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use
REV-2026-09-02-028Confirmed the 2016 article, institutional repository record, interrupted time-series design, and reported immediate decline and changed longer-term trend in views of privacy-sensitive Wikipedia articles after the surveillance disclosures.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The study is observational and cannot eliminate every alternative explanation. Its measured Wikipedia behavior should not be generalized mechanically to all information services or surveillance contexts.
Conflict note: The author’s institutional repository resolved the source identity and abstract scope after the original SSRN locator was inaccessible to the earlier review client.
Neil Richards — Intellectual Privacy
REV-2026-09-02-029Confirmed the article’s definition of intellectual privacy as protection for records of intellectual activities and its argument that such protection supports freedom of thought and expression.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The article is legal scholarship and normative analysis. It is not binding law, and application to a particular records system, subpoena, institution, or jurisdiction requires independent legal review.
Conflict note: The author’s university repository supplied the full text after the original SSRN page had been inaccessible to the earlier review client.
The concept of function creep
REV-2026-09-02-030Confirmed Bert-Jaap Koops’s 2021 peer-reviewed Law, Innovation and Technology article and its conceptual analysis of changes in a system’s or authority’s proper activity commonly described as function creep.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The concept helps identify contestable repurposing. It does not prove that every secondary use is illegitimate, intentional, or irreversible; specific systems require factual and legal analysis.
Conflict note: The publisher page was inaccessible to the earlier review client, but the author’s institutional research record resolved publication identity and scope. The existing source ID and URL remain stable.
Hypernudging — Big Data as a mode of regulation by design
REV-2026-09-02-031Confirmed Karen Yeung’s 2017 peer-reviewed article and its account of networked, continuously updated, dynamic, data-driven choice architecture that can channel attention and decisions.
Review locator: publisher or institutional record used for this bounded check.
Limit: The article supplies a socio-legal concept and rights-based critique. It does not prove that every recommender, personalization system, or nudge is coercive or harmful.
Conflict note: The publisher page was inaccessible to the earlier review client, but the King’s College London record and accepted-manuscript link resolved source identity and scope without renumbering the source.
Wording decisions and conflicts
Source reports remain immutable. A public correction or clarification is documented separately so readers can distinguish new evidence from editorial judgment.
Source count confirmed no public number change
Issue: A secondary search-result summary conflicted with the count in the report body.
Resolution: Use the report-body count already published by the site: 28 of 72 assessed countries deteriorated and 17 improved. Preserve the explicit boundary that this is one source’s comparative sample, not a world score.
Public effect: No numerical correction was required; evidence provenance and methodology language were strengthened.
Cross source scope clarification applied
Issue: Global trend indicators use different units, coverage periods, and methods and could be misread as one composite country score.
Resolution: Keep each figure attached to its source and state that the combined pattern is an editorial inference about worldwide pressure, not a merged index or a ranking of populations.
Public effect: The worldwide and update pages now repeat the no-scorecard and methodology-separation rule at the point of use.
Translation authority boundary published
Issue: A translated summary could be mistaken for an independently authoritative or perfectly equivalent source.
Resolution: Publish the Spanish pilot as a clearly labeled derivative, link to the controlling English page, disclose AI assistance and editorial review, list omissions, and state that independent native-speaker review remains pending.
Public effect: The Spanish page and translation manifest expose language, source revision, transformations, omissions, review state, and integrity hash.
Alternate authoritative locator review resolved previous blockers
Issue: Six scholarly source locators were previously classified as blocked or unavailable even though publisher or author-institution records could resolve their identity and bounded support scope.
Resolution: Preserve every stable SRC identifier and original URL, add the reviewed alternate publisher or institutional locator to the event ledger, and classify the source as verified only for publication identity, method, and named support scope. Keep observational, conceptual, and nonbinding-authority limitations explicit.
Public effect: The blocked queue falls to zero without upgrading scholarship into law, treating correlation as universal causation, or rewriting any archived report.
Implementation kit authority layers and non surveillance metrics published
Issue: A practical kit could accidentally collapse worldwide rights principles, professional guidance, technical standards, local legal duties, operational advice, and this site’s policy proposals into one falsely authoritative checklist. Metrics could also reward identity-linked monitoring of lawful reading.
Resolution: Publish every kit item with one explicit recommendation class; isolate jurisdiction-specific questions; require local legal review; bind evidence references to stable CL and SRC records; and define outcome boundaries that prohibit patron-level histories of lawful inquiry, reading, searches, or beliefs.
Public effect: The library kit is actionable without becoming legal advice, a country scorecard, vendor endorsement, or surveillance programme. Its public page and JSON source expose the same stable IDs and authority classes.
What needs attention next
The repository’s standard-library tool classifies every source and every evidence unit from committed metadata. It does not browse the web. The queue is therefore reproducible, reviewable, and safe to run offline.
| Status | Source records | Evidence units | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overdue | 0 | 0 | Records whose next-review dates precede the current as-of date. |
| Due soon | 13 | 4 | Reviewed records scheduled within the next 90 days. |
| Blocked or unavailable | 0 | 0 | Source locators that could not be directly retrieved during the recorded review. |
| Not reopened | 20 | 56 | Known source locators carried forward without an independent online recheck in this release. |
| Current | 51 | 134 | Reviewed records whose next-review dates fall beyond the current review window. |
Blocked source records
No source record remains in the blocked queue in release 1.12.0. Six previously inaccessible scholarly locators were resolved through publisher or author-institution records, with the original source URLs and all evidentiary limits preserved.
Four complete implementation kits keep authority layers separate.
The implementation-kit programme now publishes complete kits for libraries, education, journalism and exile media, and public-interest technology. Each draws on existing section-level evidence without treating human-rights records, standards, technical research, professional guidance, and site policy as interchangeable. Every safeguard, procurement question, incident step, deletion expectation, and outcome measure is labeled as a worldwide principle, a jurisdiction-specific legal question, a technical recommendation, an operational practice, or a CognitiveLiberties.com policy proposal.
Stable derivative identity
KIT-LIBRARIES-001, KIT-EDUCATION-001, KIT-JOURNALISM-001, KIT-PUBLIC-INTEREST-TECH-001, and every component ID remain bound to their public pages and machine-readable records.
No legal overclaim
Local law, collective agreements, records duties, minors’ rights, accessibility, procurement, and disclosure authority remain questions for qualified local review.
No surveillance metric
Success measures may count aggregate completion, response time, deletion proof, appeal access, or audit coverage—but not identity-linked histories of lawful reading, searching, borrowing, or belief.
The first Spanish pilot is a derivative, not a new authority.
The published Spanish worldwide summary is bound to source revision 1.7.0 and the controlling English page. It discloses AI assistance, editorial review, transformations, omissions, and the absence of independent native-speaker review.
- Translation ID
- TR-ES-001
- Review state
- editorially reviewed derivative native review pending
- Integrity
- SHA-256 exact artifact bytes
- Native-speaker review
- Pending
How the freshness queue works
- Read committed facts. The tool loads the claim ledger, source-package receipt, and mechanism taxonomy.
- Verify package custody. It checks the exact received ZIP’s size and SHA-256 before generating a queue.
- Classify deterministically. Any blocked or unrechecked states take precedence; reviewed sources are then classified by next-review date.
- Reconcile every identifier. All 84 sources and all 194 evidence units must appear exactly once.
- Write no factual conclusion. A queue entry says what to review, not whether the underlying claim is true.