{
  "$schema": "https://iarpg.com/evidence-attribution-review-packet.schema.json",
  "record_type": "iarpg-evidence-attribution-review-packet",
  "release": "IARPG-OPS-2",
  "version": "2.0.30-wip",
  "id": "https://iarpg.com/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/packets/comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy.json",
  "source_id": "comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy",
  "title": "Comparative Intelligence Oversight, Transparency, and Remedy",
  "short_title": "Comparative intelligence oversight and remedy",
  "review_state": "awaiting-qualified-human-review",
  "publication_state": "blocked",
  "preserved_source": {
    "original_filename": "Comparative Intelligence Oversight, Transparency, and Remedy(2).md",
    "path": "docs/source-files/evidence-attribution-oversight-and-leaderless-networks/Comparative Intelligence Oversight, Transparency, and Remedy(2).md",
    "url": "/docs/source-files/evidence-attribution-oversight-and-leaderless-networks/Comparative%20Intelligence%20Oversight%2C%20Transparency%2C%20and%20Remedy%282%29.md",
    "bytes": 62329,
    "sha256": "72d35b8850fed2fbadd4bdb45d6a4f8da558dfa848caba6470808c92fe32b8fa",
    "declared_cutoff": "2026-07-24"
  },
  "preserved_wrapper": {
    "url": "/docs/report/comparative-intelligence-oversight-transparency-and-remedy#reviewed-synthesis",
    "report_slug": "comparative-intelligence-oversight-transparency-and-remedy",
    "review_state": "reviewed-with-limitations"
  },
  "preserved_review_register": "/evidence-attribution-research-review-register.json",
  "source_requirement": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/source-requirements/comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy.json",
  "source_level_questions": [
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-01",
      "category": "legal-status",
      "question": "Which body has formal authority for authorization, inspection, complaint, adjudication, binding remedy, appeal, and publication under the current law?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-02",
      "category": "current-facts",
      "question": "Have statutes, mandates, officeholders, complaint routes, annual reports, judgments, or enforceability changed since the source cutoff?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-03",
      "category": "translation",
      "question": "Has legal terminology such as review, control, complaint, determination, remedy, or independence been translated with the correct jurisdiction-specific meaning?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-04",
      "category": "technical-attribution",
      "question": "Does the evidence show practical access, compulsion, inspection, and enforcement, or only the existence and title of an oversight body?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-05",
      "category": "affected-community-perspectives",
      "question": "What do complainants, journalists, lawyers, minority communities, and people subject to surveillance report about usability and practical remedy?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-06",
      "category": "privacy",
      "question": "Does publication expose complainants, classified operational details, or sensitive personal facts that are unnecessary to compare oversight capability?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-07",
      "category": "rights",
      "question": "Are secrecy, notice, standing, due process, equality, counsel, and effective-remedy implications stated without inferring hidden abuse rates?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "EARR-Q-comparative-intelligence-oversight-remedy-08",
      "category": "remedy",
      "question": "What outcomes can the body order, which are binding, how are they enforced, and what correction or appeal exists when the body itself errs?",
      "required_evidence": "Qualified, attributable, dated evidence appropriate to this category; source origin and scope must be recorded.",
      "reviewer_response": null,
      "reviewer_notes": null,
      "reviewer_identity_reference": null,
      "review_status": "unanswered"
    }
  ],
  "disposition_reviews": [
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-01",
      "topic": "oversight labels",
      "preserved_disposition": "retained-method-guidance",
      "preserved_statement": "Do not treat the existence of an oversight body as evidence that authorization, inspection, complaint, adjudication, and remedy are all available.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-01.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-01-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'oversight labels' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Do not treat the existence of an oversight body as evidence that authorization, inspection, complaint, adjudication, and remedy are all available.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-01-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-01-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-02",
      "topic": "capability matrix",
      "preserved_disposition": "retained-method-guidance",
      "preserved_statement": "Compare bodies by access, compulsion, independence, publication, binding effect, remedy, and appeal.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-02.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-02-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'capability matrix' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Compare bodies by access, compulsion, independence, publication, binding effect, remedy, and appeal.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-02-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-02-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-03",
      "topic": "law and practice",
      "preserved_disposition": "retained-method-guidance",
      "preserved_statement": "Record implementation barriers and enforcement disputes separately from formal statutory power.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-03.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-03-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'law and practice' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Record implementation barriers and enforcement disputes separately from formal statutory power.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-03-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-03-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-04",
      "topic": "current legal status",
      "preserved_disposition": "requires-current-verification",
      "preserved_statement": "Recheck statutes, amendments, officeholders, annual reports, complaint routes, and judgments before jurisdiction-specific reuse.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-04.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-04-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'current legal status' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Recheck statutes, amendments, officeholders, annual reports, complaint routes, and judgments before jurisdiction-specific reuse.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-04-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-04-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-05",
      "topic": "classified operations",
      "preserved_disposition": "safety-restricted",
      "preserved_statement": "Do not derive or publish operational surveillance, collection, evasion, or target-selection guidance from oversight materials.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-05.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-05-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'classified operations' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Do not derive or publish operational surveillance, collection, evasion, or target-selection guidance from oversight materials.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-05-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-05-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-06",
      "topic": "remedy",
      "preserved_disposition": "retained-method-guidance",
      "preserved_statement": "Treat notification, complaint, investigation, adjudication, correction, compensation, deletion, and appeal as distinct outcomes.",
      "adjudication_slot": "/evidence-attribution/review-readiness/adjudication-slots/EAR-OPS2-229-02-06.json",
      "review_questions": [
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-06-Q1",
          "category": "evidence-and-wording",
          "question": "Does the bounded statement for 'remedy' stop at the highest supported attribution rung and preserve claimant, status, confidence, reliability, and scope separately?",
          "preserved_statement": "Treat notification, complaint, investigation, adjudication, correction, compensation, deletion, and appeal as distinct outcomes.",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-06-Q2",
          "category": "source-and-translation",
          "question": "Which current primary, authoritative, locally authored, affected-community, or original-language source is required to confirm, qualify, contradict, or supersede this disposition?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        },
        {
          "question_id": "EAR-OPS2-229-02-06-Q3",
          "category": "rights-remedy-and-publication-effect",
          "question": "What privacy, rights, remedy, correction, and publication effect follows from the review, and what must remain blocked or redacted?",
          "response": null,
          "status": "unanswered"
        }
      ],
      "review_state": "unanswered"
    }
  ],
  "reviewer_owned_fields": {
    "reviewer_identity_or_consented_anonymity": null,
    "qualification_and_scope": null,
    "legal_qualification": null,
    "translation_qualification": null,
    "technical_attribution_qualification": null,
    "local_or_affected_community_relationship": null,
    "conflict_and_funding_disclosure": null,
    "review_completion": null
  },
  "publication_blockers": [
    "Independent qualified human review has not been supplied.",
    "Qualified jurisdiction-specific legal review has not been supplied.",
    "Qualified human translation and original-language review have not been supplied where required.",
    "Locally informed and affected-community review have not been supplied.",
    "Technical attribution has not been independently validated for current factual reuse.",
    "No accountable editorial adjudication or publication approval has been documented."
  ],
  "durable_report": "/docs/report/evidence-attribution-review-readiness-comparative-intelligence-oversight-transparency-and-remedy#review-readiness",
  "public_method": "/evidence-attribution/reviews",
  "non_scoring_boundary": "This packet contains questions and empty evidence fields, not a rating or ranking of any source, reviewer, community, person, organization, or jurisdiction.",
  "truth_boundary": "Structural readiness only. Reviewer-owned fields remain unanswered and no human, legal, local, technical, translation, editorial, or publication approval is implied."
}