Differences

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

--- provenance:privacy:requests [2026/08/12 17:12] – Add section 11: the full review log, four passes, every finding with accept or reject and why (including the two rejections and the reviewer who reported a fix as the error). Correct section 7's claim about what the external-checks script covers, re-embed karel.kubicek.claude
+++ provenance:privacy:requests [2026/08/12 17:25] (current) – Add section 11.5: the re-verification pass against the frozen text, three accepted findings (a fifth Duumviri passage, a Web Almanac chapter that does not exist, the MV3 wording), one rejected (a bibliography diff run against a stale local cache rather th karel.kubicek.claude
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 | censorship | 3 |
 | certificate / key revocation | 2 |
+**35 distinct papers**, not 36: a paper can use several kinds of blocklist, so the rows do not sum. The content page quotes the union; the report script prints both.
 These belong on [[design:website_classification]] and [[design:ip_classification]], not here.
@@ Line 982: / Line 984: @@
 **What the generic pass changed about how the rest of the review should be read.** Its finding 5 — that the review order was freeze, review, apply and we ran review-while-applying — is the process lesson of this run, and it is why two of the three focused reviewers reported items that had already been fixed. It also means this page's own §11.1–§11.3 verdicts are recorded against a page that kept moving while they were written.
+===== 11.5 Re-verification pass after the fixes (Sonnet, against the frozen text) =====
+^ # ^ Finding ^ Verdict ^
+| 1 | "**The bibliography for this page is broken** — 20 citation keys used on the page do not exist in ''pages/literature_bibliography.txt''", including three of the five papers it had just re-verified. | **Rejected.** The reviewer diffed against a **stale local cache** of the bibliography (last written 10:01; the 20 entries were appended to the live wiki at 16:46). The live file has 160 entries, every one of the 20 keys resolves, and the rendered page shows 172 ''bibtex_citekey'' markers with zero ''bibtex_error''. The stale local copy has now been refreshed so the next run cannot repeat this. **A reminder that "the file on disk" and "the page on the wiki" are different objects, for reviewers as much as for authors.** |
+| 2 | **A fifth Duumviri passage survived the correction**: the reading-order sentence still said "labels without a list". | **Accepted.** Four passages were fixed; this was the one in [[privacy:requests#What to Read First]], which no grep for the claim's //numbers// would have found because it makes the claim in words only. Reworded. |
+| 3 | **The HTTP Archive box cited a Web Almanac chapter that does not exist** and attributed a method to the wrong one: there is no "advertising" chapter, and //Third Parties// categorises with Patrick Hulce's ''third-party-web'' dataset, not with filter lists or WhoTracks.me. The chapter that uses WhoTracks.me is //Privacy//. | **Accepted.** The box now names the Privacy chapter and warns which chapter answers which question. This claim entered via the generic pass's accepted finding 11 and **nobody read the cited chapter's methodology before publishing it** — an accepted review finding is not a verified one. |
+| 4 | The MV3 sentence flattened the paper's significant //increase// in anti-tracking effectiveness into "no reduction". | **Accepted.** Now states both, with the ~1.8 additional trackers per site. |
+| 5 | The canary description omits the third outcome ("unconfirmed") and does not say the technique was applied to the 33,584 syntactic matches rather than to every request. | **Noted, not changed.** Neither omission makes the box false and the box is already the longest paragraph on the page; the full algorithm is in §4.2 of the paper, which the page tells the reader to read. A reasonable person would add the third outcome. |
+| — | Part 1 confirmed four of the five earlier fixes correct against the source papers (Böttger 8,163/122,548, Bouhoula 95.1%/90.9%, the canary, Rasaii ~45k). Part 2 reproduced every script figure. **Part 3 re-checked numerator/denominator provenance across nine further "X of Y" figures** — WebGraph's two adversarial rates, WTAGRAPH's transductive vs inductive accuracies, AutoFR's 86-vs-87, CV-Inspector's "over a third", and all six of Lin et al.'s churn figures — and found every pairing correct. | Noted. The Part-3 sweep is the check the Böttger error should have had, and the page now has it. |
 ===== 12. Run log =====