# Human-Review Readiness: Surveillance, Metadata, Data Brokers, and Identity Inference

## Status

Reviewed-with-limitations preparation record for IARPG-OPS-2 2.0.30-wip. It creates review questions and empty adjudication slots for the six preserved 2.0.29 dispositions. It records **zero human reviewers**, **zero qualified translations**, **zero locally informed approvals**, and **zero completed adjudications**.

## Purpose

Prepare the preserved source wrapper for independent human, legal, technical, translation, locally informed, affected-community, privacy, rights, remedy, and editorial review without altering the supplied source bytes or the prior disposition record.

## Review Readiness

- Preserved source: [Metadata And Identity Inference Analysis(2).md](../../source-files/evidence-attribution-oversight-and-leaderless-networks/Metadata%20And%20Identity%20Inference%20Analysis%282%29.md)
- Preserved SHA-256: `dba25bc69f8ce1764953a784ee4f05178e39d431c9677a47388755981f9136e0`
- Reviewed wrapper: [Surveillance, Metadata, Data Brokers, and Identity Inference](./surveillance-metadata-data-brokers-and-identity-inference.md#reviewed-synthesis)
- Machine reviewer packet: [open packet](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/packets/metadata-identity-inference.json)
- Original-language and locally authored source requirements: [open requirement](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/source-requirements/metadata-identity-inference.json)
- Public method: [Human Review Readiness](/evidence-attribution/reviews)

### Source-specific review questions

1. **Legal Status:** Which privacy, consumer, civil-rights, evidence, surveillance, data-broker, notice, correction, deletion, and appeal rules currently govern the use?
2. **Current Facts:** Have laws, enforcement orders, vendors, deployments, retention periods, litigation, or municipal systems changed?
3. **Translation:** Do translated legal and technical terms preserve the difference among observed data, derived attributes, identity hypotheses, risk labels, and decisions?
4. **Technical Attribution:** What transformation produced the inference, with what source data, assumptions, error, validation, and limits—and can it be reviewed without enabling re-identification?
5. **Affected Community Perspectives:** How do people affected by housing, employment, policing, health, migration, or other decisions describe errors, disparate effects, and barriers to challenge?
6. **Privacy:** Is the minimum necessary data used, are private identities excluded from publication, and are access, retention, sharing, and deletion boundaries documented?
7. **Rights:** Are equality, due process, notice, explanation, correction, disability access, privacy, and protection from protected-characteristic profiling addressed?
8. **Remedy:** What human review, correction, deletion, appeal, compensation, policy change, or court remedy is available and practically usable?

### Disposition-level adjudication slots

| Claim ID | Topic | Preserved 2.0.29 disposition | Empty 2.0.30 slot |
|---|---|---|---|
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-01` | observation versus inference | `retained-method-guidance` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-01.json) |
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-02` | de-identification | `bounded` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-02.json) |
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-03` | automated decisions | `retained-method-guidance` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-03.json) |
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-04` | current law and deployments | `requires-current-verification` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-04.json) |
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-05` | identity targeting | `safety-restricted` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-05.json) |
| `EAR-OPS2-229-12-06` | scoring boundary | `rejected-for-public-reuse` | [Open empty adjudication slot](../../../evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-12-06.json) |

Each slot keeps claim status, analytic confidence, source reliability, attribution rung, source origin, translation state, correction history, reviewer findings, and adjudication separate. Reviewer-owned and adjudicator-owned fields remain null.

## Findings

- The source receives the same eight review categories and three claim-level prompts per disposition as every other packet.
- The source-specific language and local-source requirements reflect its own jurisdictions and evidence environments; they are requirements, not completed reviews.
- A model-generated question can reveal an unresolved issue but cannot answer it.
- The prior disposition and exact source bytes remain authoritative history unless a later append-only correction or supersession is genuinely adjudicated.

## Translation and Local-Source Boundary

Required language environments: English, original legal and regulatory languages of cited jurisdictions, language used by affected communities and decision subjects.

Require affected-person, civil-rights, disability, labor, housing, privacy, and locally authored perspectives for every consequential-use case; vendor or regulator records alone are insufficient.

No translator identity, qualification, original-language verification, locally informed relationship, or affected-community acceptance has been supplied.

## Privacy, Rights, and Remedy Boundary

The review must minimize private information, avoid private-person identification and profiling, preserve due process and source protection, identify affected communities without typecasting them, and state actual complaint, correction, appeal, deletion, notification, compensation, or other remedy routes. It must not reproduce operational intrusion, surveillance, evasion, targeting, coercion, weapons, recruitment, or influence-execution instructions.

## Publication Blockers

- Independent qualified human review is absent.
- Jurisdiction-specific legal review is absent.
- Qualified human translation and original-language verification are absent where required.
- Locally informed and affected-community review are absent.
- Technical attribution has not been independently validated for current factual reuse.
- Accountable editorial adjudication and publication approval are absent.

## Memory References

- [Review-readiness hot memory](../../../.uai/evidence-attribution-review-readiness.uai#current-publication-contract)
- [Evidence-attribution method](../../../.uai/evidence-attribution.uai#current-publication-contract)
- [Evidence model](../../../.uai/evidence-model.uai#evidence-attribution-method)
- [International fairness](../../../.uai/international-fairness.uai#core-rule)
- [Durable pointer ledger](../../../.uai/long-term-memory.uai#evidence-attribution-review-readiness)

## Related Durable Documents

- [Review-readiness and translation-quality protocol](evidence-attribution-human-review-readiness-and-translation-quality-protocol.md#findings)
- [Cross-source fairness and unresolved approval](evidence-attribution-review-packets-cross-source-fairness-and-unresolved-approval.md#findings)
- [2.0.29 integration findings](evidence-attribution-oversight-and-leaderless-network-research-integration-report.md#findings)

## Supersession Status

First human-review-readiness record for this wrapper. Any later review must append a dated finding and adjudication record without deleting this packet, its null fields, the source bytes, or the preserved 2.0.29 disposition.