Human-Review Readiness: Information Operations, Disinformation, and Neutral Evidence Presentation

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: Information Operations, Disinformation, and Neutral Evidence Presentation(2).md
• Preserved SHA-256: 06bc8b60f0696161f298dfe2b9e15f9fe41ea315912b026f69534351dc7fd679
• Reviewed wrapper: Information Operations, Disinformation, and Neutral Evidence Presentation
• Machine reviewer packet: open packet
• Original-language and locally authored source requirements: open requirement
• Public method: Human Review Readiness

Source-specific review questions

1. Legal Status: Which definitions or legal categories are binding, advisory, platform-specific, or merely scholarly in each jurisdiction and date?
2. Current Facts: Which platform policies, government frameworks, institutional labels, and case outcomes remain current at the proposed publication cutoff?
3. Translation: Does the original-language term preserve intent, legality, behavior, and harm distinctions, or did English wording collapse materially different categories?
4. Technical Attribution: What evidence independently supports coordination, actor identity, sponsor, intent, reach, and effect at each rung, and where does the public record stop?
5. Affected Community Perspectives: How do affected journalists, civil-society groups, linguistic communities, and audiences describe harms, uncertainty, and correction needs?
6. Privacy: Could examples expose private people, sensitive affiliations, or identifiable communication patterns beyond what is necessary for the public method?
7. Rights: Does the wording preserve expression, association, due process, source protection, non-discrimination, and the right not to be falsely attributed?
8. Remedy: What correction, appeal, explanation, takedown review, reply, or compensation routes actually exist for a person or outlet affected by a label?

Disposition-level adjudication slots

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, French or other original institutional languages where cited, original language of each case artifact.

For jurisdiction-specific cases, obtain locally authored analysis or reporting from the affected information environment rather than relying only on transnational or platform sources.

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
• Evidence-attribution method
• Evidence model
• International fairness
• Durable pointer ledger

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.