Editorial standards
SIG's editorial standards are what make its record usable as evidence. Thestyle guide codifies the register rules; this page records the two hardest editorial machinery pieces: the worked example cases and the hostile-reader review that gates every dossier template version.
Example cases
Conformant copy for the three hardest cases:
A pending lawsuit
A complaint filed 2026-03-04 in [court] alleges that a plate misread led to a wrongful stop. The allegation has not been adjudicated. The department has not filed a public response as of 2026-08-20. [complaint, p. 4]
A policy/configuration divergence
The department's written policy, adopted 2025-11-02, prohibits use of the system for immigration enforcement. A configuration export dated 2026-05-02, obtained by records request, shows an immigration-related hotlist enabled. SIG has not determined which reflects current practice; both documents are linked, and this is an open question.
A cancellation with hardware remaining
The city council voted on 2026-07-14 not to renew the contract, which expires 2026-09-30. As of the most recent field observation on 2026-08-11, 23 devices remain physically installed. SIG has no evidence about whether they are operational. This is not a record of surveillance being removed.
Hostile-reader review
Before a dossier template version is released, two reviewers independently read a real rendered dossier adopting the stance of the documented organization's counsel and log every sentence they would challenge. The review, its findings, and their disposition are committed alongside the template version;release is blocked until every finding is dispositioned.
Findings
"admitted to only 38 cameras" characterizes the portal report as a concession.
accepted_revised — Rewritten to "the portal reported 38 cameras on 2026-07-01" (register rule 1).
The wrongful-stop lawsuit is described as if the misread were established fact.
accepted_revised — Rewritten to attribute the allegation to the complaint and note it is unadjudicated (rule 2).
The 31-device map figure reads as a total, not a lower bound.
accepted_annotated — Annotated as a lower bound in the same sentence as the number (rule 5).
Counsel objects to publishing the accountability event at all.
rejected_with_reason — Retained: the event is accurate and W3-sourced; a response affordance is offered instead (SIG-GOV-010).
How we know this
- Artifacts
- 255
- Tier distribution
- 2245390×untiered, 2690×W1, 175114×W3
- Independent sources
- 218
- Date range
- 2020-01-28 – 2026-09-26
- Rules applied
- p27.3/1.0.0
- Human review
- Not yet human-reviewed
Something wrong, or a privacy or safety concern?Dispute or correct this record — one click, no account required.
Cite this page
Belief-pinned permalink (reproducible after SIG corrects itself):https://surveillancegraph.org/editorial-standards/?as_of_world=2026-09-27&as_of_belief=2026-09-27&ruleset=p27.3%2F1.0.0
As of world , belief ; ruleset p27.3/1.0.0.
Surveillance Infrastructure Graph (SIG), "Editorial standards", as of world 2026-09-27, belief 2026-09-27, ruleset p27.3/1.0.0. Retrieved from https://surveillancegraph.org/editorial-standards/?as_of_world=2026-09-27&as_of_belief=2026-09-27&ruleset=p27.3%2F1.0.0