Webclat / Truth
Proof

Cases

Cases are published with client permission; the first is in review.

Each case is written the same way: what we had said, what the site showed, what we corrected, what we measured after. Client names never appear. Numbers appear only when they were measured.

The template every case follows

  • Context. What was audited and why.
  • What we had published. The finding as delivered.
  • What the site showed. The live observation, method named, frames scanned.
  • The correction. What changed in the wording and what did not.
  • What was measured after. Per consent state, decoded, counted two ways.
  • What we got wrong. Our own retracted readings, kept on the record.
  • Status. Build version, verification count, what remains unread.
  • How it grades. The row the case would produce in an answer audit.

No client names. No vendor logos. Numbers only when measured. Where a number cannot be shared, the mechanism is.

Until the first case is cleared for publication, the method is on /how-we-grade, the measurement behind it on /tracking-audit and /cookie-audit, and the engagement on /answer-audit.

Questions

Why publish a correction to your own finding?

Because the standard an answer audit grades to is the standard we hold ourselves to. A finding that cannot be corrected on live evidence is an opinion.

Will you name the client?

No. Client names appear in conversation only, never in print.

When will there be cases?

After each engagement that produces a graded set the client allows us to describe. The first is in review.

Every wrong answer traced to the tracking, taxonomy or consent fault that caused it.

See the answer audit