Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- provenance:privacy:age_assurance [2026/09/15 17:14] – Generic review log, the mistyped-slug defect that produced a published falsehood, and the reclassification of GAN-Invert to MENTION (20/7). Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude
+++ provenance:privacy:age_assurance [2026/09/15 17:21] (current) – Second-round review log, the de-hyphenation-as-someone-else's-defect mistake, three stale figures corrected, and the completed neighbour backlinks. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 | 11 candidates from the title-and-summary probe in ''scripts/gap_probe_roadmap.mjs'' | The 11 are really **10** — the probe has no word boundary before ''age'' (below) — and **3** of them are in the derived population: //Easy As Child's Play//, //Tales from the Porn// and the CCS 2022 kids'-apps poster. **27.3% precision** against the 11. A full-text probe finds **38** candidates and **5** population papers, so the title probe's **recall is 3 of 5 (60%)**: it misses {[west2024_picture]} and {[alomar2022_developers]}, whose titles say nothing about age. |
 | "most are children's-privacy and COPPA-compliance work" | Confirmed, and sized: **36** papers name COPPA in ''legal[]'', against **5** in the age-assurance population, and exactly **1** paper is in both. |
-| "the one squarely on it is //Easy As Child's Play//" | Confirmed. It is the only ''OBJECT'' verdict in the audit, and it has 194 phrase matches against the runner-up's 22. |
+| "the one squarely on it is //Easy As Child's Play//" | Confirmed. It is the only ''OBJECT'' verdict in the audit, and it dominates the probe: the matched-form counts in the script output below are driven by it. |
 | "the 2019 IMC porn-ecosystem paper is adjacent and useful for the web case" | Confirmed, and it turned out to be the **only** web-platform measurement of age gates in the corpus, and the source of the page's vantage-point argument. |
 | "the regulatory surface is moving years ahead of the published measurement" | Confirmed with nine dated primary sources, 2025-01-16 to 2026-09-11. |
-One thing the queue did not anticipate and the page now leads on: **six papers hit age assurance as an obstacle to a measurement about something else**, and that is the most common way it appears in the corpus. Four of those six are from 2025–2026.
+One thing the queue did not anticipate and the page now leads on: **six papers hit age assurance as an obstacle to a measurement about something else** — more than measure it, though fewer than the 20 that merely mention it. Five of those six are from 2025–2026.
 ===== The population =====
@@ Line 316: / Line 316: @@
 console.log(table(['year', 'candidates', 'measures it', 'obstructed by it'], yearRows));
 console.log('* 2025-2026 are provisional venue-years — see literature:corpus.');
+// A share of candidates means nothing without the corpus's own share for the
+// same years: the corpus grew, so "more mentions lately" is partly arithmetic.
+const recentCand = rows.filter((r) => r.p.year >= 2025).length;
+const recentCorpus = P.filter((p) => p.year >= 2025).length;
+console.log(`\n2025-2026: ${recentCand} of ${tightKeys.size} candidates (${pct(recentCand, tightKeys.size)})` +
+  ` against ${recentCorpus} of ${P.length} papers in the corpus (${pct(recentCorpus, P.length)})`);
+console.log(`  of those ${recentCand} candidates, ${rows.filter((r) => r.p.year >= 2025 && (r.v === 'OBJECT' || r.v === 'SECTION')).length} measure age assurance` +
+  ` and ${rows.filter((r) => r.p.year >= 2025 && r.v === 'OBSTACLE').length} were obstructed by it`);
 const venueRows = [...new Set(P.map((p) => p.venue))]
   .map((v) => [v, rows.filter((r) => r.p.venue === v).length,
@@ Line 659: / Line 667: @@
 *  6           0            1
 * 2025-2026 are provisional venue-years — see literature:corpus.
+-2026: 17 of 38 candidates (44.7%) against 1185 of 5859 papers in the corpus (20.2%)
+  of those 17 candidates, 1 measure age assurance and 5 were obstructed by it
 venue    candidates  measures it
@@ Line 1051: / Line 1062: @@
   'risk-based, flexible, tech-neutral and future-proof': 'aa/ico_joint.txt',
   'laid before the end of the year, and the changes should be implemented in Spring 2027': 'aa/gov_factsheet.txt',
+  'should be implemented in Spring 2027': 'aa/gov_factsheet.txt',
   'serious doubts': 'aa/ofcom2026.txt',
   'Almost all analysed pornography services relied exclusively on third-party vendors, with only one analysed pornography service using an in-house solution': 'aa/ofcom2026.txt',
@@ Line 1238: / Line 1250: @@
 [ ok ] when creating an account, minors below 13 can enter a false birth date  — aa/ec_meta.txt
 [ ok ] laid before the end of the year, and the changes should be implemented  — aa/gov_factsheet.txt
+[ ok ] should be implemented in Spring 2027  — aa/gov_factsheet.txt
 [ ok ] serious doubts  — aa/ofcom2026.txt
- spans: 8 not-a-quote, 16 external, 24 paper; 0 failed, 2 located in a paper other than the nearest citekey
+ spans: 8 not-a-quote, 17 external, 24 paper; 0 failed, 2 located in a paper other than the nearest citekey
 control ok: a fabricated span is not located
 control ok: a real span resolves to its own paper, not to the other key in the block
@@ Line 1355: / Line 1368: @@
   - **The roadmap's own committed probe has the same defect** and is the reason //F-BLEAU: Fast Black-Box Leakage Estimation// is one of its 11 age-assurance candidates.
   - **The first quote check failed on a true quote.** {[west2024_picture]}'s contribution sentence is spliced across a column boundary in all three ''.txt'' renderings; ''pypdf'' has it verbatim. The checker was rewritten to try four renderings and to print which one located each needle, and a fabricated-needle control was added so the check cannot pass vacuously.
-  - **The bibliography cache served a stale parse.** After appending 11 entries and saving the page, 11 of 20 references rendered as allocated-but-empty numbers while both sources looked perfect. Purging ''literature/bibliography?purge=true'' and then the page fixed it; the rendered reference count was then checked against the distinct marker count (20 = 20, 42 markers, 42 ''bibtex_citekey'' spans).
+  - **The bibliography cache served a stale parse.** After appending 11 entries and saving the page, 11 of 20 references rendered as allocated-but-empty numbers while both sources looked perfect. Purging ''literature/bibliography?purge=true'' and then the page fixed it. The check that matters is **distinct citekeys against rendered references**: 20 = 20. The marker-to-span ratio is not a check — the plugin emits **two** ''bibtex_citekey'' spans per marker, so the page's 55 markers render as 110 spans, and an earlier note here that read "42 markers, 42 spans" was counting one of them with a regex that only matched the opening span.
   - **ofcom.org.uk is unreachable from this sandbox** (403 to curl, to WebFetch, and to a full headless-Chromium context). The January 2025 quotes come from an Internet Archive capture; the July 2026 report was obtained from the UK government's asset host, which is not blocked. The page says so in both footnotes rather than implying a direct read.
+  - **A de-hyphenation artefact was published as a defect in someone else's paper.** The artefacts table asserted that the repository URL printed in {[moti2024_targeted]} 404s. It does not. The paper prints ''https://github.com/targeted-and-troublesome/'', broken across a line at ''targeted-and-''; ''paper.cols.txt'', ''paper.norm.txt'' and the extraction's ''artifacts.codeUrl'' all rejoin it as ''targeted-andtroublesome'', which is what 404s. Only ''paper.txt'', which preserves the line break, shows the truth. The generic reviewer found it by reading all three renderings. **The tooling's own artefact was published as their error**, which is the second time in this run that an ENOENT or a mangled string was read as a fact about someone else's work.
   - **A mistyped slug produced a published falsehood about the corpus itself.** An early context pull used ''…privacy-preserving-facial-transformation**s**'' where the directory is singular. The ENOENT was read as "this paper has no full text", and that became an ''ARTEFACT'' verdict, a script comment, a provenance bullet and a limitation on the content page saying one candidate had been judged from its title alone. The file is there, 102 KB; the probe read it; its five matches are //age estimation// as the name of a face-attribute ML task. The generic reviewer found it by checking the claim against the script's **own printed list** of the four papers without full text — GAN-Invert is not on it. The verdict is now ''MENTION'' (20/7) and the limitation is deleted. Nothing about the population changed, but four separate places had repeated the same unchecked inference.
   - **The page's most important figures were the ones a first draft got wrong, and neither was caught by a guard.** The 2019 age-verification percentages were published against the wrong denominator — the paper's 6,843-site corpus and "six vantage points", where the section itself is a hand check of at most fifty sites in four countries — because the quote-check located the sentence and nothing checked what the sentence was a share //of//. And the whole 2026 UK deployment picture was missing, because the page was written from the corpus and the corpus stops at seven academic venues. Both came from reviewers.
@@ Line 1405: / Line 1419: @@
 | The page claims //"a verbatim-quote check of every per-paper number"//; eleven numbers sit outside every needle and a mutation of 14% to 24% passed both guards. The reviewer hand-verified all eleven and they are correct. | **Accepted.** The methodology section now names the eleven figures that are hand-checked rather than guarded. |
 | Missing practical point in the ethics section: verification vendors expose sandbox modes. | **Rejected for now.** No primary source was reached for which vendors do, and the page does not name vendors at all; asserting it would be exactly the vendor-marketing claim the source policy on this page rejects. Recorded here so the next run can close it. |
-| No neighbouring page links back to this one. | **Accepted in principle, not done in this sitting.** Adding a row to four neighbours' cross-reference tables is a separate edit against four pages whose own figures are current; doing it here risks the stale-snapshot failure this run has already paid for once. Filed as follow-up work. |
+| No neighbouring page links back to this one. | **Accepted and done**, as a separate edit after the page was frozen for the re-review: one line each in [[:design:blocking_and_geodifference]], [[:design:crawling_location]], [[:privacy:consent]] and [[:practices:ethics]]. No figures on those pages were touched. |
 | Several phrases repeat (//at most fifty// five times, //one of its two case studies// three times). | **Partly accepted.** Two instances trimmed; the rest carry the caveat in places a reader may arrive at directly. |
 | Nits: {[west2024_picture]} uses Frida rather than the camera; the 5,855-apps / 5,855-papers coincidence; an unsupported causal claim about the six obstacle papers; the unused //"we did not find any instance of AgeID being deployed"//. | **All four accepted.** |
+Both passes were re-run once more against the frozen pages. What they found the second time:
+^ Finding ^ Disposition ^
+| **The artefacts section published a defect in someone else's paper that does not exist.** {[moti2024_targeted]} prints its repository URL correctly; ''paper.cols.txt'', ''paper.norm.txt'' and the extraction all de-hyphenate it across a line break into a URL that 404s. | **Accepted — the worst finding of the second round**, and recorded in the mistakes list above. The row now states the correct URL, its HTTP 200, and the artefact that caused the confusion. |
+| The Zenodo record for GUARD is titled //Drexel-SePAL/AgeScope: v1.0.1-1//, so searching for "GUARD" will not find it. | **Accepted.** The row now says so. |
+| Three unbounded negatives introduced by the new artefacts section — //"there is no dataset"//, //"nobody has published one"//, and an ordering sentence attributing a sort to Ofcom that Ofcom does not perform. | **Accepted, all three.** |
+| The closing argument said a crawl against adult sites would measure //the smaller half//, which nothing on the page sizes, and asserted the Spring 2027 date the fact sheet hedges. | **Accepted.** Both softened to what the sources support. |
+| The intro's verdict clause attached //"the name of an unrelated ML task"// to the 7 ''ARTEFACT'' papers, where it describes the 20th ''MENTION''. | **Accepted.** Reworded. |
+| The methodology section's list of eleven hand-checked figures is incomplete — the artefact file sizes, Ofcom's 25%-to-43% and 64-of-100, the survey base of 50 and several paraphrased denominators are in the same position. | **Accepted, and the enumeration was abandoned.** It was incomplete twice; the page now states the class instead, which is both shorter and true. |
+| Three stale numbers in this provenance page: the "most common way it appears in the corpus" phrasing, an unsourced "194 phrase matches", and a marker-to-span identity that was never consistent. | **Accepted, all three.** The last one is worth keeping in mind: the bibtex plugin emits **two** spans per marker, so marker count and span count are not a check. |
+| Scripts reproduce their committed outputs byte-for-byte; the verdict split, 44.7%/20.2%, the four artefact URLs, 55,481 bytes, 2,004 distinct URLs and the 2025-02-04 push date all independently verified. | **Accepted as a pass.** |
+| The two ''WARN'' spans are correctly attributed; the log did not name them. | **Accepted.** They are //"Despite being rated as 17+…"// (nearest key ''vallina2019_porn'', found in ''yao2025_easy'') and //"seven out of 20 apps…"// (nearest key ''ardi2023_prevalence'', found in ''moti2025_whispertest''). In both, the previous bullet's trailing citekey is closer in characters than the bullet's own key at its end. A third ''WARN'' would be a new thing to look at. |