Orca

Verification workbench

The records most worth a person verifying next, ranked by what turns on them and by what is thin about the evidence behind them.

Snapshot 2026-09-20, built 2026-09-26, commit 019924ac64ee0aa0742b8f02a04488a83633385d. Recomputed from the corpus on every build and stored nowhere between builds.

Where verification stands

0 records are verified, so the queue is untouched. 2194 are in the queue: 126 draft and 2068 corroborated.

The queue holds 939 Rules, 777 reason codes, 360 rail facts, 60 Exceptions, 41 LifecycleStates, 11 Mandates, 5 CodeSets, 1 Calendar. A record leaves it the moment its tier improves to verified, and superseded records and earlier meanings are not in it at all. Corroborated records stay: a corroboration is a check against a public source, and it is not a verification.

What a person must do to verify one

Verification is a human act, and it is the one thing in Orca no agent and no build may do. A build can rank; only a person can verify.

Open the governing authority's own current text for that rail. Not a bank guide, not a processor's documentation, not a summary, and not the source the record was already corroborated against unless that source is the authority's own text.
Find the claim the record makes: its meaning, its return window, its retry rule and what it counts toward. Confirm each one, not the first one.
Note the edition you consulted, exactly as the authority names it, and the section.
Record it with scripts/verify.mjs, which is the only write path for the verified tier. It writes the edition, today's date and your name onto the record. Editing a file by hand to say verified is not a verification and the build treats it as one only because it cannot tell; the rule against it is the whole of the guard.

node scripts/verify.mjs <rail> <CODE|facet|prefix.slug> "<edition consulted>" "<your name>"

If the authority's text is paywalled, participant-only or behind a login, stop and record that instead: a record that cannot be verified today is a note for the rail brief, not a lower bar. A corroboration against another public source goes through scripts/corroborate.mjs and never through this page.

The queue

The first 60 of 2194, best first. Each row shows its rank, its uid, what it is, its score out of 100, and the few words that put it there. Every row of the queue, with every factor's score, is in verify.json.

1sepa-sct-inst:refundrail fact, draft67

Does anyone have a right to be refunded, and on what grounds?

decides refund; 3 graded practitioner questions rest on it; still a draft, nobody has checked it

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
2pix:consumer-lawrail fact, draft63

What protects an end user on Pix, and where does the rulebook stop?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; 8 other records point at it

operational consequence 20likely frequency 10draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
3sepa-sct:consumer-lawrail fact, draft63

What consumer law applies, and what does it give a consumer that the rules do not?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; 7 other records point at it

operational consequence 20likely frequency 10draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
4fednow:consumer-lawrail fact, draft62

What rights does a consumer have that the rulebook does not give?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
5sa-sarie:refundrail fact, draft62

Does the payer have a right to get money back, and on what terms?

decides refund; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14conflicting sources 5compliance or consumer protection 3
6uk-fps:recallrail fact, draft61

Can a payer get a Faster Payment recalled?

decides recall; still a draft, nobody has checked it; 2 graded practitioner questions rest on it

operational consequence 20likely frequency 12draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
7my-duitnow:recallrail fact, draft60

Can the sender or the sending bank pull a payment back, and how?

decides recall; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
8sepa-sdd-core:MS02reason code, draft60

Refusal by the Debtor

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10conflicting sources 5compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
9pix:recallrail fact, draft59

Can the payer's side pull a Pix back, and what does asking actually do?

decides recall; still a draft, nobody has checked it; 7 other records point at it

operational consequence 20likely frequency 10draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
10sepa-sdd-core:consumer-lawrail fact, draft59

What consumer protection attaches to a Core direct debit, and where does it come from?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
11sa-sarie:settlementrail fact, draft58

How and in what money do participants settle with each other?

sets a settlement rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14conflicting sources 5unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
12ca-acss:916reason code, draft57

Personal PAD not drawn as the agreement allows

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
13ca-acss:919reason code, draft57

Business PAD not drawn as the agreement allows

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
14sepa-sdd-b2b:consumer-lawrail fact, draft57

What consumer protection attaches to a B2B direct debit, and where does it come from?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
15us-ach:rule.authorization-general-requirementsRule, corroborated56

Authorization: what every debit authorization must satisfy

decides consumer law; 4 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 7unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
16ca-acss:915reason code, draft55

Payor says no debit agreement ever existed

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
17ca-acss:918reason code, draft55

Personal PAD sent without the required notice to the payor

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
18ca-acss:921reason code, draft55

Business PAD sent without the required notice to the payor

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
19in-upi:rule.upi-autopay-modificationRule, draft55

UPI AutoPay: changing a live mandate's amount or payee

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
20nct-inst:consumer-lawrail fact, draft55

What consumer protections apply to an NCT Inst payment, and where do they come from?

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
21nct-inst:recallrail fact, draft55

Can the sender get an NCT Inst payment back, and who decides?

decides recall; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
22sepa-sct:refundrail fact, draft55

Does anyone have a right to be refunded, and on what grounds?

decides refund; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
23uk-fps:rule.credit-payment-recovery-is-not-a-reversalRule, draft55

Credit Payment Recovery is an attempt, not a right

still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked; decides recall

operational consequence 12likely frequency 10draft status 16evidence strength 14compliance or consumer protection 3
24us-ach:rule.reinitiation-after-funds-returnRule, draft55

Reinitiation after an insufficient or uncollected funds return

decides return; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10conflicting sources 5
25pix:rule.automatico-three-refusal-families-and-who-raises-themRule, draft54

Pix Automatico: the three places a collection can be refused, and who refuses

3 graded practitioner questions rest on it; still a draft, nobody has checked it; describes the mechanics

operational consequence 12likely frequency 16draft status 16evidence strength 10
26sa-sarie:liabilityrail fact, draft54

Who bears the loss when a payment goes wrong?

still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked; decides liability

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14conflicting sources 5compliance or consumer protection 3
27us-ach:R11reason code, corroborated54

Entry not in accordance with the terms of the authorization

tells a reader not to retry; 5 graded practitioner questions rest on it; carries a consumer protection

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18evidence strength 4conflicting sources 5compliance or consumer protection 7
28ca-acss:917reason code, draft53

Personal PAD sent after the payor cancelled

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
29ca-acss:920reason code, draft53

Business PAD sent after the payor cancelled

tells a reader not to retry; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
30nct-inst:refundrail fact, draft53

Does anyone have a right to be refunded for an NCT Inst payment, and on what grounds?

decides refund; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
31ph-instapay:limitsrail fact, draft53

What amount limits apply to InstaPay, and who sets them?

sets a limits rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
32pix:rule.consumer-law-a-fee-rule-and-a-disclosure-ruleRule, draft53

A fee rule and a disclosure rule

decides consumer law; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 7
33pix:rule.agendado-a-repeat-date-the-month-lacks-moves-to-the-1stRule, draft52

Pix Agendado: a repeating payment on the 29th, 30th or 31st

sets a settlement rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; 2 graded practitioner questions rest on it

operational consequence 16likely frequency 10draft status 16evidence strength 10
34au-npp:liabilityrail fact, draft51

Who bears the loss on an NPP payment?

decides liability; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
35google-pay:liabilityrail fact, draft51

Who bears the loss when a Google Pay payment goes wrong?

decides liability; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
36nct-inst:finalityrail fact, draft51

When does an NCT Inst payment become final, and can it be reversed?

decides finality; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
37nct-inst:liabilityrail fact, draft51

Who is liable when an NCT Inst payment goes wrong, and how much?

decides liability; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
38us-ach:R03reason code, corroborated51

No account or unable to locate account

tells a reader not to retry; 5 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 5
39us-ach:R07reason code, corroborated51

Authorization revoked by customer

tells a reader not to retry; 4 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 16evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 7
40us-ach:R29reason code, corroborated51

Corporate customer advises not authorized

tells a reader not to retry; 4 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 5
41us-ach:R34reason code, draft50

Limited participation DFI

still a draft, nobody has checked it; tells a reader not to retry; no source checked

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 5unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
42us-ach:rule.return-what-a-processor-calls-a-late-returnRule, draft50

What a processor calls a late return

decides return; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10
43google-pay:rule.pan-only-is-not-a-tokenRule, draft49

A card-on-file payment is not a tokenised payment, and the token rules do not reach it

decides liability; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
44mx-spei:rule.plazo-de-devolucion-no-acreditadaRule, draft49

Sixty seconds from the settlement advice, with six named exceptions in seconds and clock times

decides return; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 20draft status 16evidence strength 10unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
45ph-instapay:messagesrail fact, draft49

What message standard does InstaPay use, and what must a payment carry?

still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked; describes the mechanics

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
46ph-pesonet:messagesrail fact, draft49

What message standard does PESONet use, and what must a payment carry?

still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked; describes the mechanics

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14unclear deadline or retry guidance 3
47rtp-return-request:NOASreason code, draft49

No answer from customer

tells a reader when a retry is allowed; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3
48rtp-return-request:UAPAreason code, draft49

Fraudulently induced payment

tells a reader when a retry is allowed; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 2draft status 16evidence strength 10compliance or consumer protection 3unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
49uk-fps:rule.bank-error-recovery-for-payments-sent-in-bulk-by-mistakeRule, draft49

Bank Error Recovery covers a participant's own bulk mistake

still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked; decides recall

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 14compliance or consumer protection 3
50us-ach:R02reason code, corroborated49

Account closed

tells a reader not to retry; 6 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 16evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 5
51us-ach:R04reason code, corroborated49

Invalid account number structure

tells a reader not to retry; 4 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 16evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 5
52us-ach:R10reason code, corroborated49

Customer advises originator not known or not authorized

tells a reader not to retry; 10 graded practitioner questions rest on it; carries a consumer protection

operational consequence 20likely frequency 18evidence strength 4compliance or consumer protection 7
53us-ach:R20reason code, corroborated49

Non-transaction account

tells a reader not to retry; 3 graded practitioner questions rest on it; secondary sources only

operational consequence 20likely frequency 16evidence strength 8compliance or consumer protection 5
54nct-inst:settlementrail fact, draft48

How does NCT Inst settlement work, when does it happen, and in what money?

sets a settlement rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10
55paypal-dispute:PROBLEM_WITH_REMITTANCEreason code, draft48

Problem with remittance

tells a reader when a retry is allowed; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10unclear deadline or retry guidance 2
56uk-fps:decision-pointsrail fact, draft48

Where does a person or a bank actually decide something?

sets a decision points rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10
57uk-fps:limitsrail fact, draft48

How much can one Faster Payment carry?

sets a limits rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10
58us-ach:rule.hours-a-day-off-the-holiday-list-is-still-a-banking-dayRule, draft48

A day off the holiday list is still a banking day

sets a hours rule; still a draft, nobody has checked it; no source checked

operational consequence 16likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10
59ch-sic-ip-reject:TM01reason code, draft47

SIC IP cancelled: hard time-out

still a draft, nobody has checked it; tells a reader when a retry is allowed; no source checked

operational consequence 12likely frequency 4draft status 16evidence strength 10unclear deadline or retry guidance 5
60uk-fps:exc.credit-payment-recoveryException, draft47

Credit Payment Recovery (CPR)

still a draft, nobody has checked it; decides whether money moves; no source checked

operational consequence 12likely frequency 6draft status 16evidence strength 10unclear deadline or retry guidance 3

How each factor is computed

Eight factors, summing to 100. Every one is read from fields the corpus holds, and the same code that ranked the queue writes this list, so the weights below are the weights used.

Operational consequenceup to 20 of 100What turns on the record, 0 to 12, plus whether it carries a deadline, 0 to 8. 12 when it decides whether money comes back or who bears a loss: a reason code that says do not retry, a Core record whose money_moves is true, or a facet among finality, liability, recall, refund, return, consumer-law. 8 when it sets a limit, a cut-off or a choice point: a reason code that allows a retry under conditions, or a facet among limits, decision-points, settlement, hours. 4 otherwise (participants, messages, or no facet). A Core record states its deadline, its threshold, who bears the loss and who is eligible as typed parameters, and those are read too: liability_holder scores 12, and time_window, limit or eligibility score 8. Then 8 when a deadline on the record is anchored to a day or a date, 4 when it is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, and 0 when the record carries no deadline.
Likely frequencyup to 18 of 100Two proxies, because the corpus holds no usage data. 0 to 12 for graded practitioner questions: 12 when three or more questions in a graded competency bank name this uid in answered_by, 8 for two, 4 for one. 0 to 6 for inbound links: 6 when six or more other records point at this uid, 4 for three to five, 2 for one or two, counting related on published records and used_by on Core records.
Draft statusup to 16 of 10016 when effective_status is draft, which covers both a record nobody has checked and a corroboration that has gone stale. 0 when it is corroborated. A verified or superseded record is not in the queue at all.
Evidence strengthup to 14 of 100From source_class, the strongest class among the record's own corroboration: 10 when nothing has checked it, 8 secondary, 4 public_primary, 0 authoritative_primary. Plus 4 when currency.primary_not_public is true, meaning the governing authority's own text was not the source.
Stalenessup to 10 of 100The age of the newest checked_on among the record's corroboration, against the corpus snapshot: 10 when the check has already gone stale under the 24 month rule, 6 at 18 months or older, 3 at 12 months or older, 0 when newer or when nothing has been checked (which evidence strength already scores at its maximum).
Conflicting sourcesup to 10 of 100From the source-conflict register, on the uids each conflict names: 10 unresolved, 5 resolved, 3 superseded, the highest where several name the record. A resolved conflict still scores, because what closed it was a reading of public sources, not the authority's own text.
Compliance or consumer protectionup to 7 of 100The highest that applies. 7 for the consumer-law facet, or a reason code requiring a written statement of unauthorized debit. 5 for a reason code that feeds a return-rate threshold, sits in the consumer-dispute group, or whose applies_to names a consumer. 3 for a reason code in the authorization group, a Core Mandate, or a facet among liability, refund, recall.
Unclear deadline or retry guidanceup to 5 of 1003 when the record's deadline carries one of the corpus's own uncertainty markers ([Inference], [Unverified], [Speculation]) or says no deadline is stated or published, or when a reason code carries no return window at all. Plus 2 when a reason code's retry rule carries one of those markers. A rail fact or a Core record has no retry rule and scores 0 on that half.

Consequence and compliance overlap on purpose: a record that decides a consumer's rights is weighted twice, once for what turns on it and once for whose money it is. Ties are broken by rail then uid, so two builds of one corpus publish the same order.

What this ranking cannot use

These would improve the queue and the corpus cannot support them. None of them is approximated by something else here.

Real usage. Orca holds no request counts, page views, search logs or reader reports, and the published site collects none. Nothing here knows which code a practitioner actually hit last week. Likely frequency is two proxies instead, and they are named.
Volume on the rail. No rail publishes how often each reason code is used, and the corpus stores no volume field. A code that fires ten thousand times a day and one that fires twice a year score the same.
Money at stake. No record carries an amount, a limit in currency, or a loss figure. Consequence is read from what the record instructs and whether it names a deadline, not from what it could cost.
How hard it is to verify. Whether the governing text is reachable is recorded per rail in the rail brief and in docs/chief-of-staff.md, not per record, so the queue cannot say that the top record needs a licence nobody holds. Several rails are on that held list; read the brief before starting.
Who asked. The graded competency bank records an asker type per question, but only one rail has a bank, so weighting by asker would rank one rail above the rest for a reason that is about coverage of the bank, not about the record.
Age of the rule. currency.effective_since is free text and on many records says the edition read gives no date, so the queue does not treat an old rule as safer or a new one as riskier.

Rail by rail

How much of each rail is waiting, and where its best candidate sits

us-ach371 records queued, top rank 15, best score 56

pix186 records queued, top rank 2, best score 63

au-npp131 records queued, top rank 34, best score 51

uk-fps94 records queued, top rank 6, best score 61

in-upi80 records queued, top rank 19, best score 55

gcc-afaq-return77 records queued, top rank 196, best score 35

mx-spei75 records queued, top rank 44, best score 49

blik68 records queued, top rank 279, best score 32

rtp-reject67 records queued, top rank 188, best score 36

bancontact61 records queued, top rank 75, best score 45

eps61 records queued, top rank 283, best score 32

boleto59 records queued, top rank 153, best score 38

nct-inst58 records queued, top rank 20, best score 55

sepa-sct55 records queued, top rank 3, best score 63

sepa-sct-inst53 records queued, top rank 1, best score 67

apple-pay46 records queued, top rank 124, best score 40

pix-reject45 records queued, top rank 197, best score 35

google-pay44 records queued, top rank 35, best score 51

visa-decline42 records queued, top rank 555, best score 27

ch-sps-status41 records queued, top rank 507, best score 27

mastercard-decline38 records queued, top rank 740, best score 25

sepa-sdd-b2b36 records queued, top rank 14, best score 57

sepa-sdd-core36 records queued, top rank 8, best score 60

au-npp-reject33 records queued, top rank 1164, best score 20

ca-acss33 records queued, top rank 12, best score 57

gcc-afaq-reject27 records queued, top rank 257, best score 33

visa-dispute23 records queued, top rank 557, best score 27

ch-sic-ip-reject17 records queued, top rank 59, best score 47

eps-error14 records queued, top rank 183, best score 36

ch-sic12 records queued, top rank 96, best score 43

ch-sic-ip12 records queued, top rank 135, best score 39

fednow12 records queued, top rank 4, best score 62

gcc-afaq12 records queued, top rank 184, best score 36

mastercard12 records queued, top rank 226, best score 34

my-duitnow12 records queued, top rank 7, best score 60

paypal12 records queued, top rank 186, best score 36

ph-instapay12 records queued, top rank 31, best score 53

ph-pesonet12 records queued, top rank 46, best score 49

rtp12 records queued, top rank 187, best score 36

sa-sarie12 records queued, top rank 5, best score 62

uk-fps-reject12 records queued, top rank 90, best score 44

visa12 records queued, top rank 389, best score 30

eps-refund-error11 records queued, top rank 1733, best score 14

eps-status-reason11 records queued, top rank 1390, best score 18

uk-fps-return11 records queued, top rank 131, best score 40

paypal-dispute10 records queued, top rank 55, best score 48

ch-sic-ip-return-request-rejection7 records queued, top rank 796, best score 24

rtp-return-request7 records queued, top rank 47, best score 49

ch-sic-ip-return-request6 records queued, top rank 794, best score 24

pix-return4 records queued, top rank 293, best score 32

38 records in the queue are named by the source-conflict register, and 1012 are named by a graded competency question. Staleness is measured against snapshot 2026-09-20 with the same 24 month rule the corpus applies everywhere else.

Reference material, not legal or compliance advice. The data files and their licence.