COR-2026-001
Fixed0 callers notified
Own articles still cited data vendors on our excluded-source list
What we claimed / the state of affairs
We apply a hard rule to sources: secondary commercial data vendors may not be used as a data source (internally graded R4). Nevertheless, among our 66 in-house industry articles some still named or cited such vendors (Longzhong, Sci99, Mordor, MarketWatch, GII Research and others). This contradicted our own rule and had not been disclosed.
Basis for overturning it
Every one of the 66 in-house articles was scanned to locate the named vendors and classify the context as either “cited its data” or “mere mention”. Result: 13 articles matched, all of them ‘cited its data’; zero were mere mentions.
When
Detected and remediated: 11–12 October 2026
What was done
Following our existing practice for excluded sources, the 13 articles were marked as withdrawn but not deleted: their identifiers were written to the article library's exclusion list (with reason, evidence and date), which the observations index build consumes before regenerating the list page.
Current status (including what is still open)
Fixed · measured: https://trustbaselab.com/insights/ returns HTTP 200 and states 53 articles (66 − 13 = 53); each of the 13 excluded vendors returns zero hits.
Related record IDs
rcb-art-026、rcb-art-028、rcb-art-050、rcb-art-051
COR-2026-002
Open0 callers notified
Under a bilingual claim, the observations index exists at one Chinese URL only
What we claimed / the state of affairs
We claim bilingual delivery and provide a language toggle. However, the observations index exists only at /insights/, whose lang is zh-CN and whose canonical points to itself — there is no equivalent English list page, so English readers landing there from an English entry point see Chinese.
Basis for overturning it
Measured HTTP status: /insights/ → 200; /zh/insights/ → 404; /insights → 301. There is no /zh/-prefixed equivalent and no English counterpart.
When
First recorded: 12 October 2026 (re-confirmed the same day)
What was done
Not yet fixed. Fixing it requires a coordinated change to URL structure and i18n routing — a separate publishing-layer task. This round records it rather than shipping a half-change.
Current status (including what is still open)
Open, recorded as-is: the page works; the defect is the mismatch between the bilingual claim and the URL structure. Because self-consistency is part of our stated method, this entry is published before it is fixed — an archive records, it does not only collect closed items.
COR-2026-003
Partially converged0 callers notified
Three different public record totals: 2,347 / 2,348 / 2,415
What we claimed / the state of affairs
Several public surfaces each report a “total record count” and the numbers disagreed. Measured on 12 October 2026: the MCP data service returned total_records = 2,347; the homepage status bar showed 2,348; the authoritative dataset data.json reported meta.total_records = 2,415. For a data infrastructure selling verifiability, the total is the single easiest number for an outsider to spot-check — three coexisting values are themselves an untrustworthy signal.
Basis for overturning it
Recomputed table by table (definitions and commands are in corrections.json):
(1) the live MCP snapshot (data_version 0.12, exported_at 2026-10-11T18:44:15): 12 tables summing to 2,347, with domestic = 37;
(2) the homepage snapshot: the same 12 tables but with domestic = 38, summing to 2,348;
(3) the authoritative local dataset: 13 tables (including the fitness domain, 67 records), summing to 2,415.
When
First recorded 12 October 2026; the definition below was fixed the same day
What was done
One definition, fixed: the public total equals meta.total_records in the authoritative dataset data.json, and must equal the sum of all keys in meta.counts; records flagged excluded=true are not counted. Every public surface must be driven by that field instead of computing its own.
Current status (including what is still open)
Partially converged, recorded as-is: the definition is fixed, but two discrepancies remain and require a data release — (1) the fitness domain (67 records) is not yet published on our public surfaces, so the authoritative total (2,415) still exceeds the public total (2,348) by 67; (2) the live MCP snapshot is one domestic record behind the homepage (37 vs 38). Until that release lands, the public figure remains 2,348 and this archive does not claim it has converged.
Related record IDs
rcb-cn-001 (示例)、cb-trade-*、tbm-*
COR-2026-004
Open0 callers notified
Shandong Yuguan Machinery: the recorded tyre/plastics pyrolysis line is not supported by its official site
What we claimed / the state of affairs
Original record claim (September 2026, kept verbatim): the product line is “waste recycling and pyrolysis equipment (tyres/plastics)”, “covering tyre and plastic pyrolysis, emphasising cost efficiency and scalability”. At the time this rested only on sponsored industry posts.
Basis for overturning it
Our verification record (14 Oct 2026): the official site shandongyuguan.cn was located (Shandong Yuguan Machinery Co., Ltd., Zhangqiu, Jinan; English name Shandong Rotex Machinery; founded 2013). Its published product line is biomass pellet mills / crushing / pulverising / drying equipment — no tyre or plastics pyrolysis product was found.
Re-check before this entry was published (15 Oct 2026): the site returned HTTP 430 with an in-site “security verification” page (bot mitigation), so no new verbatim excerpt could be captured; the 14 Oct 2026 record above stands as the official-side evidence.
⚠️ Honesty boundary: the official-side evidence is our verification note (a summary), not verbatim page text captured today.
When
First verified 14 Oct 2026; registered and publicly annotated 15 Oct 2026
What was done
The record is kept, confidence stays C, nothing is withdrawn and the original claim is not rewritten. A public contradiction note (#contradiction) is added to the record page: the recorded claim and the official-side evidence side by side, with verification dates and method, a conclusion, and the objection channel. The same note is written to the top-level data field contradiction so human and machine surfaces share one source.
Current status (including what is still open)
Open, recorded as-is: the contradiction is publicly annotated, but no third source beyond the official site has yet confirmed or refuted the claim. If the vendor provides product-line evidence, it will be published alongside our conclusion through the correction channel.
Related record IDs
rcb-eq-059
COR-2026-005
Open0 callers notified
Qingdao Liwei Environmental Protection: official product line is welding-fume and dust collection, not the recorded pyrolysis/gasification units
What we claimed / the state of affairs
Original record claim (September 2026, kept verbatim): the product line is “integrated pyrolysis and gasification units”, “tailored to regional waste composition and regulatory requirements”.
Basis for overturning it
Verbatim from the official site (15 Oct 2026, HTTP 200, https://www.liweihb.com/ ):
· page title: “烟尘净化器|移动式焊烟净化器|工业除尘设备|除尘打磨工作台|力维环保”;
· product sections: “自循环焊烟净化器除尘工作台/风墙”, “中央式焊接烟尘净化器 移动式焊接烟尘净化器”;
· term frequency across the page: “除尘” (dust removal) 93×, “焊烟” (welding fume) 74×; “热解” (pyrolysis) 0×, “气化” (gasification) 0×.
→ The published line is welding-fume purification and industrial dust collection, which does not overlap with the recorded claim.
When
First verified 14 Oct 2026; verbatim re-check 15 Oct 2026; registered 15 Oct 2026
What was done
The record is kept, confidence stays C, nothing is withdrawn and the original claim is not rewritten. A public contradiction note (#contradiction) is added, placing the recorded claim next to the official title, product sections and measured term frequencies.
Current status (including what is still open)
Open, recorded as-is: the mismatch between the official site and the recorded claim is established by direct measurement. The record must no longer be cited as evidence that this vendor has a pyrolysis line, but the record itself is kept — it documents what we had recorded at the time.
Related record IDs
rcb-eq-061
COR-2026-006
Open0 callers notified
Pyrolysis Technology GmbH: process form, feedstock and location all contradict the official site
What we claimed / the state of affairs
Original record claim (September 2026, kept verbatim): the product line is “continuous pyrolysis plants (plastics and biomass; syngas and oil)”, “up to 20 t/day per line”, located in “Karlsruhe, Germany”, with the operation mode marked continuous. At the time this rested only on a vendor list in a commercial market-research report (a source this site does not rely on).
Basis for overturning it
Verbatim from the official site (15 Oct 2026, HTTP 200, https://ptg.eco/ ):
· page title: “Pyrolysis Technology Group”;
· hero: “PYROLYSIS PLANTS For recycle plastics, rubber, oil and drilling muds”;
· models: “UTD1-13M / UTD1-21M / UTD1-40M”;
· contact address: “SLOVAKIA, BRATISLAVA … DOBŠINSKÉHO 30, 811 05, BRATISLAVA, SLOVAKIA”.
· term frequency across the page: “biomass” 0×, “continuous” 0×, “Karlsruhe” 0×, “Germany” 0×.
→ Three mismatches: (1) the site lists containerised models by waste type (waste plastics / rubber / oil / drilling mud) and never calls the process “continuous”; (2) “biomass” does not appear; (3) the contact address is in Bratislava, Slovakia, not “Karlsruhe, Germany”.
⚠️ Entity identity (whether the operator of ptg.eco is the entity the record refers to) remains unconfirmed; this entry makes no finding on it.
When
First verified 14 Oct 2026; verbatim re-check 15 Oct 2026; registered 15 Oct 2026
What was done
The record is kept, confidence stays C, nothing is withdrawn and the original claim is not rewritten. A public contradiction note (#contradiction) is added with both sides' text, the measured term frequencies, and an explicit note that entity identity is unconfirmed.
Current status (including what is still open)
Open, recorded as-is: the location and process-form mismatches are established by direct measurement; because entity identity is unconfirmed this entry records the contradiction as fact without asserting either that it is or is not the same company.
Related record IDs
rcb-eq-066