Trust · SI Editorial Standard in public

Weekly public audit

Each week we publish a random sample of the items that were published automatically, with the score the independent SI critic gave each rule, plus how often the gate passes or rejects drafts and why. The sample is drawn with a fixed seed for the week, so anyone reloading this page sees the same items. Items are SI-generated and not individually reviewed by a person. Rules and thresholds are on the methodology page; fixes are in the corrections log.

← 2026-W40 Week 2026-W41 · Oct 05–Oct 11, 2026 2026-W42 →

“The sample”

10 of 19 automated publications this week (seed 202641).

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-08

Medicaid Integrity Partnership with State Flexibility and Five-Year Sunset

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	5	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully tracks the supplied excerpt and labels all extensions as VFA proposals with limits and uncertainty noted. Constitutional citations are real and do operative work, framing is genuinely bipartisan, and stage is accurately conditional. No factual inventions, misapplied citations, or partisan language found.

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-08 · stage changed

Lower Elwha Trust Lands Restoration and Accountability Act

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	5	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully tracks the source excerpt on acreage, trust status, and gaming ban while labeling all new safeguards as VFA proposals. Constitutional citations are real and correctly applied as authorizations and limits. Framing is genuinely bipartisan, conditional, and transparent about unverified details.

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-08

Limited and Accountable Federal Fraud Enforcement Act

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	5	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully tracks the supplied excerpt and frames a conditional, limited VFA alternative with caps, sunset, and oversight. Constitutional citations are real and correctly applied, bipartisan gains are concrete, and limits are disclosed. No factual inventions, misapplied citations, or partisan language found.

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-08

Fair Livestock Markets and Interstate Meat Access Act

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	5	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully reflects EO 14424 and proposes a conditional statute with constitutional limits, capped funding, sunset, and oversight. It is balanced, honest about uncertainty, and leads with a specific constitutional argument answering the main objection.

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-08

Corrected SI Executive Order: Lawful Rancher Support Within Current Authority

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	5	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully tracks EO 14425 and proposes a lawful, conditional correction within current authority. Constitutional citations are real and relevant, framing is genuinely bipartisan, and proposal is clearly separated from enacted law.

Founders' Verdict · 2026-10-08

Founders' Verdict on HR/119/10763

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
internal consistency	5	hard, at least 4
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate correctly stays within the bare title-and-referral record, conditions constitutionality on interstate nexus and rights safeguards, and presents balanced bipartisan gains. Citations are real and on-point, stage is accurate, and panel is internally consistent.

Founders' Verdict · 2026-10-07 · source changed

Founders' Verdict on HR/119/10723

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
internal consistency	5	hard, at least 4
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate stays strictly within the title-only source, correctly treats HR 119-10723 as pending authorization, and grounds conditional constitutionality in appropriate foreign-affairs and enumerated powers. It is balanced, honest about unknowns, internally consistent, and constitution-first. Meets all thresholds for publication.

Founders' Verdict · 2026-10-07

Founders' Verdict on HRES/119/1609

Mean critic score: 5.0 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
internal consistency	5	hard, at least 4
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate stays strictly within the title-only source, correctly analyzes the House resolution as non-binding declaratory expression under Article I Sections 5-6 with Amendments I and X limits. Unanimous panel, balanced gains, and conditional limits are all accurately stated with no factual invention.

Founders' Verdict · 2026-10-07 · source changed

Founders' Verdict on HR/119/10684

Mean critic score: 4.88 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	5	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
internal consistency	5	hard, at least 4
clarity	4	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	5	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate stays strictly within the title-only source, correctly states pending referral status, uses real constitutional provisions conditionally, and preserves bipartisan framing with a 2-2 split matching a conditional verdict.

VFA SI Solution · 2026-10-07

H-1B Program Integrity and American Worker Protection Act

Mean critic score: 4.62 / 5

Rule	Score (0–5)	Threshold
source grounding	5	hard, at least 4
constitution support	4	hard, at least 4
balance	5	hard, at least 4
stage accuracy	5	hard, at least 4
honesty	5	hard, at least 4
originality	4	at least 3
clarity	5	at least 3
constitutional first persuasive clarity	4	at least 3

Critic summary: Candidate faithfully reflects EO 14431's purpose and Sections 2-3 coordination and layoff review, frames all new funding and enforcement details as VFA proposal, and grounds them in valid constitutional powers with bipartisan gains. No invented EO facts, misapplied citations, or partisan language found.

“Gate pass and reject rates”

Last 7 days

Product	Published	Rejected	Pass rate	Critic pass / fail	Repaired	Held	Unpublished / flagged later
explainer	0	0	—	19 / 44	48	0	0 / 0
VFA SI Solution	41	33	55%	41 / 72	63	0	0 / 0
paper_section	0	0	—	0 / 0	7	0	0 / 0
SI Think Tank idea	14	1	93%	0 / 0	0	0	0 / 0
Founders' Verdict	6	20	23%	6 / 23	14	0	0 / 0
SI Senate measure	1	12	8%	7 / 9	8	0	0 / 0
paper	0	0	—	0 / 0	0	0	0 / 0

Top rejection reasons

parliament: unsupported claim — 27
solution: critic verdict — 22
solution: misapplied citation — 15
solution: constitution_support — 13
parliament: the gate's model call failed after SI and fallback attempts — 11
solution: the gate's model call failed after SI and fallback attempts — 10
parliament: source_grounding — 9
parliament: critic verdict — 9
solution: constitutional_first_persuasive_clarity — 9
parliament: misapplied citation — 8

Last 30 days

Product	Published	Rejected	Pass rate	Critic pass / fail	Repaired	Held	Unpublished / flagged later
explainer	0	0	—	21 / 54	51	0	0 / 0
paper_section	0	0	—	0 / 0	16	0	0 / 0
VFA SI Solution	98	120	45%	101 / 157	172	56	0 / 1
SI Think Tank idea	24	1	96%	0 / 0	0	0	0 / 0
Founders' Verdict	15	43	26%	15 / 45	28	0	0 / 5
SI Senate measure	4	23	15%	10 / 12	13	0	0 / 0
paper	0	0	—	0 / 0	0	0	0 / 0

Top rejection reasons

solution: the gate's model call failed after SI and fallback attempts — 69
parliament: unsupported claim — 58
solution: critic verdict — 47
solution: misapplied citation — 42
solution: constitution_support — 34
parliament: the gate's model call failed after SI and fallback attempts — 26
solution: constitutional_first_persuasive_clarity — 18
parliament: critic verdict — 17
parliament: source_grounding — 16
senate: the gate's model call failed after SI and fallback attempts — 16

Pass rate = published / (published + rejected) among drafts the gate decided. A draft that is held waits for a daily cap or a live source check and is counted when decided. Standard version si-editorial-standard/1.0.

Corrections log · Methodology · JSON