Audit log

Every state-changing event for OpenAI: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-09-22 22:28:22Z
   Score: 48 → 48 (no score change)
   The page is well-sourced and its individual factual claims — the NYT lawsuit, the Musk v. Altman verdict and its statute-of-limitations basis, the September 2026 unsealed filing quote, the restructuring MOU terms (26% stake, ~$130B), the FTC investigation, the wrongful-death suits, the 2023 board crisis, the March 2023 data breach, the X account hack, and the Worldcoin regulatory history — all independently checked out against multiple credible sources. The one material problem is that the Regulatory Actions section presents Italy's €15 million Garante fine as an unresolved matter under appeal, when in fact a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, well before this page's review date; this is a stale claim that should be corrected. No accepted community submissions exist to spot-check. Coverage gaps include the lack of any update on the Garante fine's reversal and no discussion of independent AI-safety findings or financial/compute risk.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 449,513,420

   sig

   4XVEMGbb38gM…GutwnR4zcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   G8Zh5gjMT34v…zuohj9dEcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1545 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"935bd9031b3e2543e7f9091184f3b1a3","decided_at":"2026-09-22T22:28:22.290Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"6rJDJmNLDrnKqbUA3B4LaHYuLEt6bnzmFGGZnXcWwHZy","investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":48,"page_content_hash":"880359a84e557f8ac0932bcba0b163d15e83755c9bd1d71f091510ece865a787","page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"The page is well-sourced and its individual factual claims — the NYT lawsuit, the Musk v. Altman verdict and its statute-of-limitations basis, the September 2026 unsealed filing quote, the restructuring MOU terms (26% stake, ~$130B), the FTC investigation, the wrongful-death suits, the 2023 board crisis, the March 2023 data breach, the X account hack, and the Worldcoin regulatory history — all independently checked out against multiple credible sources. The one material problem is that the Regulatory Actions section presents Italy's €15 million Garante fine as an unresolved matter under appeal, when in fact a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, well before this page's review date; this is a stale claim that should be corrected. No accepted community submissions exist to spot-check. Coverage gaps include the lack of any update on the Garante fine's reversal and no discussion of independent AI-safety findings or financial/compute risk.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":1,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision f31842e8-14e9-444e-8f0c-a9180e2d62a8copy
2. #2review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-09-22 22:28:22Z
   Score: 48 → 38 (-10)
   Of 12 individually checked claims, 11 were confirmed accurate and only 1 was found stale (claim_findings[4]), putting disputed content at roughly 8% of reviewed claims. That single stale item is not trivial, though: the page's Regulatory Actions section describes Italy's €15 million Garante fine against OpenAI as a live, under-appeal liability, but a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, months before this review. The reviewer also flagged this as a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]), which under our standards is enough to warrant a revision even though the overall disputed rate is low. No other section, including the wrongful-death suits, the Musk verdict, the restructuring MOU, or the crypto-adjacent claims, was disputed.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 449,513,445

   sig

   45Q1GyAGVC95…eDYcRoWjcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   F3QeNetSCQ3M…LfPnF58zcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (2164 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"935bd9031b3e2543e7f9091184f3b1a3","band_override":{"actual_delta":-10,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"Of 12 individually checked claims, 11 were confirmed accurate and only 1 was found stale (claim_findings[4]), putting disputed content at roughly 8% of reviewed claims. That single stale item is not trivial, though: the page's Regulatory Actions section describes Italy's €15 million Garante fine against OpenAI as a live, under-appeal liability, but a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, months before this review. The reviewer also flagged this as a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]), which under our standards is enough to warrant a revision even though the overall disputed rate is low. No other section, including the wrongful-death suits, the Musk verdict, the restructuring MOU, or the crypto-adjacent claims, was disputed."},"decided_at":"2026-09-22T22:28:22.290Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":38,"page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"Of 12 individually checked claims, 11 were confirmed accurate and only 1 was found stale (claim_findings[4]), putting disputed content at roughly 8% of reviewed claims. That single stale item is not trivial, though: the page's Regulatory Actions section describes Italy's €15 million Garante fine against OpenAI as a live, under-appeal liability, but a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, months before this review. The reviewer also flagged this as a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]), which under our standards is enough to warrant a revision even though the overall disputed rate is low. No other section, including the wrongful-death suits, the Musk verdict, the restructuring MOU, or the crypto-adjacent claims, was disputed.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 8e61d463-c664-47ae-9d02-840c70fe5a92copy
3. #3reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-09-23 02:43:36Z
   Score: 48 → 48 (no score change)
   This page is well-sourced and its major factual claims — the NYT copyright suit and its September 2026 unsealed-filing developments, the Musk v. Altman jury verdict and its statute-of-limitations basis, the October 2025 restructuring MOU and the Foundation's ~26%/$130B stake, the Italian Garante fine and its March 2026 annulment on jurisdictional grounds, the FTC's 2023 CID, the March 2023 data breach, the wrongful-death suits, the November 2023 board crisis, and the Worldcoin/crypto-impersonation material — all check out against independent tier-1 and tier-2 reporting located directly. No claim was found to be disputed, stale, or supported by a dead link; every cited URL sampled resolved to content matching the page's characterization. The only defect found is a minor omission in the data-breach section, which lists the exposed billing fields but drops the card-expiration-date field that the cited source itself reports — an easy, low-stakes completeness fix rather than a substantive inaccuracy. The page's hedging language ('allegations,' 'unproven,' 'disputes') is used appropriately throughout for contested/pending litigation. No accepted community submissions were present to review. Coverage gaps are minor and mostly about optional context (EU-wide GDPR exposure beyond Italy, financial condition) rather than missing risk-relevant facts.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 449,571,003

   sig

   3YBuGYvhQxLU…3eZTTbKzcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   7oBprt4E35rc…LBQdUWRucopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1924 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"e401a900022e9ac915194f3a3f5098bb","decided_at":"2026-09-23T02:43:36.500Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"8r1FQNvH3C2CgDkKSKVZWS2nQJxzHPF1j3zJjLEQctkz","investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":48,"page_content_hash":"058e91dd0cb41e54729a3d4b873fd0a0cff20ce9b8f2f03cf864b3326259ad7e","page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"This page is well-sourced and its major factual claims — the NYT copyright suit and its September 2026 unsealed-filing developments, the Musk v. Altman jury verdict and its statute-of-limitations basis, the October 2025 restructuring MOU and the Foundation's ~26%/$130B stake, the Italian Garante fine and its March 2026 annulment on jurisdictional grounds, the FTC's 2023 CID, the March 2023 data breach, the wrongful-death suits, the November 2023 board crisis, and the Worldcoin/crypto-impersonation material — all check out against independent tier-1 and tier-2 reporting located directly. No claim was found to be disputed, stale, or supported by a dead link; every cited URL sampled resolved to content matching the page's characterization. The only defect found is a minor omission in the data-breach section, which lists the exposed billing fields but drops the card-expiration-date field that the cited source itself reports — an easy, low-stakes completeness fix rather than a substantive inaccuracy. The page's hedging language ('allegations,' 'unproven,' 'disputes') is used appropriately throughout for contested/pending litigation. No accepted community submissions were present to review. Coverage gaps are minor and mostly about optional context (EU-wide GDPR exposure beyond Italy, financial condition) rather than missing risk-relevant facts.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 94c029a4-060d-4d4d-b71e-a816f903f6aecopy
4. #4review approveby judgejudge

   2026-09-23 02:43:37Z
   Score: 48 → 48 (no score change)
   Of 11 claims checked, 10 were confirmed against independent tier-1/tier-2 sources and only 1 (claim_findings[5], the March 2023 data breach description) was found partially supported due to a minor omission of the card-expiration-date field, not a substantive inaccuracy. That puts disputed content at roughly 9% of claims, well within the approve range, and no claim was found to be false, stale, or backed by a dead link. The reviewer flagged only low/medium-priority coverage gaps (e.g., EU-wide GDPR exposure beyond Italy) that suggest expansion rather than correction, and reviewer confidence (0.82) supports treating this as a solid pass.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 449,571,020

   sig

   3J9xEk4yz8Je…W8NtPLV4copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   HWyZVDsGAdMV…GXg5SkH9copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1109 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"e401a900022e9ac915194f3a3f5098bb","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-23T02:43:36.500Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":48,"page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"Of 11 claims checked, 10 were confirmed against independent tier-1/tier-2 sources and only 1 (claim_findings[5], the March 2023 data breach description) was found partially supported due to a minor omission of the card-expiration-date field, not a substantive inaccuracy. That puts disputed content at roughly 9% of claims, well within the approve range, and no claim was found to be false, stale, or backed by a dead link. The reviewer flagged only low/medium-priority coverage gaps (e.g., EU-wide GDPR exposure beyond Italy) that suggest expansion rather than correction, and reviewer confidence (0.82) supports treating this as a solid pass.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision f32438c9-272f-4008-900d-384b68050d1acopy