When the evidence changes, the public record should say why.

Evidence levels and known gaps separated

• Prepared a public evidence index, publication protocol, and LAVIDGE evidence pack.
• Separated raw source artifacts, signed publisher summaries, and hosted model observations.
• Narrowed LAVIDGE to the published matrix: Perplexity #1, Grok #2, Gemini #3, Claude #4, ChatGPT surfaced.
• Removed unsupported duration and aggregate-prompt framing from the Top10Lists.us public copy.
• Kept the V Digital Services prompt mismatch and 2026-07-22 ChatGPT omission in the visible sequence.

Three Ed25519 case summaries created

• Published signed JSON summaries for LAVIDGE, Aker Ink, and V Digital Services.
• Published the standalone Node verifier and referenced the AnswerShare public JWKS.
• The summaries were generated from AnswerShare's canonical case-study copy; they are not provider-original model receipts.

Source material still needed

• LAVIDGE: historic raw responses, screenshots, absolute observation dates, and a public baseline.
• Aker Ink: raw prior and later Gemini responses, model version, timestamp, screenshot, and elapsed window.
• V Digital Services: direct public links to the 30-file baseline pack and raw 2026-07-16 outputs.
• Top10Lists.us: provider-original run receipts and a reconciled date for the hosted assessments.

Versioning rule

Correct the statement. Preserve the reason.

A material prompt, model, rubric, collection-window, or interpretation change creates a new entry. Earlier artifacts remain identifiable, and current copy links to the statement the evidence can support now.