# AuditMap community questions-to-verification prototype

Generated: 2026-08-13T00:00:00.000Z

## Outcome

- 9 public-question inputs became 7 grouped research needs.
- 9 evidence items were evaluated under explicit freshness and provenance rules.
- 4 fact candidates require maintainer approval; nothing is auto-published.
- 3 conflict, corroboration, freshness, moderation or privacy items remain in review.

## Need states

- verified_candidate: 4
- conflict_review: 1
- supported_pending_review: 1
- needs_research: 1

## Invariants demonstrated

1. Public discussion is stored separately and always labeled unverified.
2. Repeated questions group by place and topic without becoming facts.
3. Official sources and dated field reports retain independent provenance.
4. Conflicting values block promotion and enter a review queue.
5. Citation-bound summaries state uncertainty and never bypass evidence.
6. Email addresses and phone numbers are redacted before grouping.
7. A verified candidate still requires explicit maintainer approval.

Run `npm test`, `npm run build`, and `npm run verify` to reproduce the release.