Records · Verification table

Loose ends, 6 November 2026

The working record behind the pages, published as written. Source file source/verify/loose-ends-2026-11-06.md. All records.

Four items left open by today's Do-page verification. Every source below was read on 6 Nov 2026 (reads between about 10:00 and 11:00 EST). Fetch results are what the server returned to curl or to headless Chrome. Quotes are copied from the fetched text.

Verdicts: CONFIRMED (the source says it), PARTLY (the source says some of it), NOT FOUND (the source was read and doesn't say it), UNREAD (the source could not be read).

A. Trafficking Do page: raid-and-rescue harms

Decision: whether to restore a sentence, removed earlier today because no cited source supported it, saying the raid-and-rescue model "has a documented record of harming the people it finds".

Claim	URL	Fetch result	Exact quote	Verdict
Raids harm the people they find (Cambodia)	https://www.hrw.org/reports/cambodia0710webwcover.pdf (Human Rights Watch, Off the Streets: Arbitrary Detention and Other Abuses against Sex Workers in Cambodia, July 2010); landing page https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/07/19/streets/arbitrary-detention-and-other-abuses-against-sex-workers-cambodia	200, PDF, 76 pages; landing page 200 (the 2010/07/20 URL 404s; hrw.org/node/91629 redirects to the 07/19 URL)	"Other abuses commonly occur in periodic crackdowns and raids by police and district authorities". "The police or municipal MOSAVY officials often send sex workers and others caught up in raids to government Social Affairs centers or to shelters run by NGOs. In 2008, local human rights groups and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) documented abuses and conditions in two government Social Affairs centers, Koh Kor (or Koh Rumdoul) and Prey Speu, including suspicious deaths, rape, torture, beatings, and illegal restrictions on freedom of movement." It quotes the US government: "Cambodian police conducted numerous raids on brothels, and detained a large number of women in prostitution, while failing to arrest, investigate or charge any large number of persons for human trafficking offenses. Moreover, the detained females in prostitution may have included some trafficking victims, though police made few attempts to identify, assist, or protect them."	CONFIRMED for Cambodia, 2008–2009. Grade: charity's own figures (an NGO's investigation, more than 90 interviews).
Raids harm the people they find (India, Thailand, others); IJM named	https://www.antislavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/collateraldamage_2007.pdf (GAATW, Collateral Damage, 2007, 264 pp.); intro also at https://www.gaatw.org/Collateral_Damage_Final/CollateralDamage_INTRO.pdf	antislavery.org PDF 200; GAATW intro PDF 200; the gaatw.org single-file URL in today's earlier table now redirects to a 404 page	Introduction (Dottridge): "The processes for identifying people who have been trafficked and for getting them out of the grips of those who are trafficking or exploiting them remain crude and often inflict unnecessary abuse on others. This is particularly the case as far as 'raids' on suspected brothels (or bars and other places acting as brothels) are concerned." India chapter (Kapur): "there is evidence that these raids have occasioned abuse by the police and are also counter-productive"; problems include "the serious human rights violations occurring during raids; the arrest of 'rescued' women for soliciting while brothel-owners remain at liberty"; "These raids have been supported and encouraged by a number of NGOs including the International Justice Mission and Maiti Nepal … the sex workers and other support groups have documented how these raids have actually encouraged and legitimated large-scale harassment, abuse and extortion of the brothel communities by the police, without clear evidence of many children being 'rescued'." Thailand chapter (Pollock): "During the raid, all the personal possessions of the women were confiscated and, according to someone present at the raid, the belongings were never returned."	CONFIRMED (India, Thailand). Grade: charity's own figures (an advocacy network's country studies, which cite NGO reports). The India evidence is second-hand (Sen and Nair 2004; Terre des hommes 2004).
Peer-reviewed: raids violate the rights of trafficked people and sex workers (US)	https://antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/27 (Ditmore and Thukral, "Accountability and the Use of Raids to Fight Trafficking", Anti-Trafficking Review 1, 2012, doi 10.14197/atr.201218)	200 (full text via /article/download/27/47)	Abstract: "Research also reveals that raids are all too frequently accompanied by violations of the human rights of trafficked persons and sex workers alike, and can therefore be counterproductive to the underlying goals of anti-trafficking initiatives." Methods: "In-depth interviews were conducted with 46 people in the United States". Findings: "None of the 15 women interviewed had been identified as trafficked by local law enforcement following a raid"; "All service providers interviewed reported that federal anti-trafficking raids can lead to the deportation of many people before they can be properly screened for trafficking"; "They cited trauma and detention as common consequences of raids"; one woman "expressed anger at having been pistol-whipped".	CONFIRMED (US, interviews 2007–2008). Grade: research. Limits: 46 interviews, not a sample; data first published by the Sex Workers Project (an advocacy group), 2009. The journal's current policy says "Articles are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers in a double-blind process"; whether that applied to the 2012 issue was not checked.
Peer-reviewed: raids undermine HIV work (India)	https://antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/download/28/48?inline=1 (Ahmed and Seshu, Anti-Trafficking Review 1, 2012)	200	"Contrary to the purported goal of assisting women, the anti-trafficking projects that employ a raid, rescue, and rehabilitate model often undermine HIV projects at the local level, in turn causing harm to women and girls."	CONFIRMED, one case study (one peer educator, Sangli). Read, not cited on the page.
A systematic review	https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680 (Platt et al., PLOS Medicine, 2018)	200	"repressive policing was associated with substantially higher odds of any kind of violence (5,204 participants, OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.96–4.57)"	NOT FOUND for raids specifically: the review pools "repressive policing" of sex work and the fetched text never uses the word "raid". Not cited. No systematic review of raid-and-rescue itself was found.
The Exodus Road works with police to find victims	https://theexodusroad.com/donate/	200	"Our undercover investigators partner with law enforcement to find victims, gather evidence, and free survivors from trafficking situations." "Your donation supports our intervention work (investigations and operations to free survivors)"	CONFIRMED. Grade: charity's own figures.
IJM's model today	https://www.ijm.org/our-model	403 to curl; Cloudflare check in headless Chrome; 402 to WebFetch	—	UNREAD. The page says IJM "has worked with police" only on GAATW's 2007 account; it makes no claim about IJM today.

Decision. The sources support the claim about raids in general: four independent reads (HRW, GAATW, a peer-reviewed US interview study, a peer-reviewed India case study) describe arrests, detention, beatings, confiscated belongings and deportation of the people raids find, including trafficking victims. The limits: all of it is police raids on the sex trade, reported 2007–2012; none studies The Exodus Road's or IJM's current work. So the restored sentence is about "raids like that", not about either charity's record, and the source note says so.

Restored on the page (after "…neither has an independent evaluation of results we could read."):

Both have worked with police to find and free victims, and raids like that have a documented record of harming the people they find.

Source s6 now cites The Exodus Road's donate page, HRW 2010, GAATW 2007 and Ditmore and Thukral 2012, with grades, and ends: "These describe police raids on the sex trade, reported from 2007 to 2012; none studies either charity's work today."

What would overturn it: a controlled or independent evaluation showing raids by these organisations (or police raids generally) leave the people found better off on balance, or evidence that the documented abuses were confined to the reported places and years. Contest kept: in the US study, two of five law-enforcement interviewees spoke in favour of raids, and one saw both good and bad results.

B. Child hunger Do page: Taimaka related-party flags

Decision: whether Taimaka's tax filings flag related-party transactions in 2023 and 2024, and if so, what they are.

Claim	URL	Fetch result	Exact quote	Verdict
ProPublica flags conflict-of-interest transactions	https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/843964208	200	"According to its Dec. 2024 tax filing, this nonprofit: Reported conflict of interest transactions". The same flag ("Reported conflict of interest transactions") appears under both the FY2024 and the FY2023 filings.	CONFIRMED for 2023 and 2024.
What the flag is (FY2024 return, filed Nov 2025)	https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/843964208/202523219349303582/IRS990ScheduleL (rendered from https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text/202523219349303582/IRS990ScheduleL)	200 (the XML download link returns 403; the full-text view reads)	Schedule L, Part II, Loans to and/or From Interested Persons: "JUSTIN GRAHAM / PRESIDENT / DEPOSIT INTIAL FUNDS / X / 100 / 100". Parts I (excess benefit), III (grants to interested persons) and IV (business transactions) are empty. Form 990, Part IV, line 26 ("Did the organization report any amount on Part X, line 5 or 22 for receivables from or payables to any current or former officer…"): Yes. Lines 27, 28a, 28b, 28c: No. Part X, loans and other payables to officers: $100 at the start and end of the year.	CONFIRMED: one $100 payable to the president, which the charity still owes.
Same in FY2023 (filed Nov 2024)	https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text/202443209349324189/IRS990ScheduleL	200	Same Schedule L row: "JUSTIN GRAHAM / PRESIDENT / DEPOSIT INTIAL FUNDS / X / 100 / 100". Line 26: Yes; 27, 28a–c: No. Part X payable to officers: $100 at year end.	CONFIRMED.
Charity Navigator profile	https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/843964208	200; panels read in headless Chrome by opening each tab	"82%	Three-Star Charity	3 of 4 BEACONS COMPLETED". No related-party or Schedule L item appears in any panel. Governance panel: "Independent Board Size:2 … Charities of this size are expected to have at least 3 independent board members", "Independent Board Majority:No", "Board-Approved Budget:No". Accountability: "Financial Statements:No".	Three stars CONFIRMED; no related-party flag on Charity Navigator.
GiveWell's current Taimaka page	https://www.givewell.org/node/4359 → https://www.givewell.org/research/grants/taimaka-acute-malnutrition-treatment-in-gombe-state-nigeria-november-2024-and-program-monitoring-march-2025	200	"Published: June 2025". "We expect to make a decision on whether to renew our support for Taimaka's program in 2026." Forecast: "50% / We decide to make an additional grant by end of 2026". Nothing on governance or related parties. A search of givewell.org found no newer Taimaka page.	Renewal still pending, as the page says.

Decision. The flags are real, and small. Added beside the existing caveat:

Its 2023 and 2024 tax filings each flag one related-party deal: a $100 loan from its president for its first deposit, still owed.

Source s7 now links Taimaka's ProPublica page and records the Schedule L row (with the filing's own spelling, marked [sic]), graded primary. "For its first deposit" is our reading of "DEPOSIT INTIAL FUNDS".

Not added (outside this item's scope, for the next review): Charity Navigator's governance panel shows two independent board members of four voting members (the 990 says 4 voting, 2 independent) and no board-approved budget. That may matter more to a donor than the $100 loan.

What would overturn it: an amended 2023 or 2024 return, or a 2025 return showing the loan repaid.

C. Cybercrime: T-Mobile number lock (proposal only; page not edited)

Claim on the page	URL	Fetch result	Exact quote	Verdict
"T-Life app → Account. Turn on SIM Protection"	https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/help-with-t-mobile-account-fraud	200 to curl (body is built by script); full text with every section opened, headless Chrome	"Set up in T-Life: Access T-Life on your device. Select the Manage Tab. Select the gear icon. Select Security. Select SIM Protection. Switch the toggle to enable/disable SIM Protection for entire account. Switch the toggle to enable/disable SIM Protection for individual lines on the account. Select Save Changes. Select Continue."	PARTLY: the tab is Manage, not Account, then gear → Security → SIM Protection.
"…and Port Out Protection (line by line)"	same	same	"Port Out Protection is a free feature offered to all T-Mobile Postpaid, T-Mobile for Business, T-Mobile Prepaid, and Metro by T-Mobile customers." "This service must be added to each line on your account individually." T-Life: "Select the Manage Tab. Select See Plans in My account section. Select Manage add-ons in the plan section. … Scroll down to select/unselect the checkbox next to Port Out Protection. Select Continue. Review your order and select Agree & Submit to add the feature. Repeat steps 2 - 8 for each additional line"	CONFIRMED line by line; path is Manage → See Plans → Manage add-ons.
"…set an account PIN"	same	same	"T-Mobile recommends setting up a Personal Identification Number (PIN) for when you contact customer service". T-Life: "From T-Life, select the Account tab > select the gear icon in the top-right. Select Security > select T-Mobile ID. If prompted, log in to the T-Life app. Select Account PIN/Passcode." "use your phone while on our home network (not roaming), with Wi-Fi turned off." "Only the Primary Account Holder can change the account PIN." "The PIN/Passcode must have 6-15 non-sequential numbers"	CONFIRMED. Note the same page calls the tab "Account" here and "Manage" for SIM Protection.
Cost	same; https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/sim-protection/	both 200; SIM page read in headless Chrome	Fraud page: "SIM Protection is a free feature offered to all T-Mobile Postpaid customers." Port Out Protection "is a free feature" (above). SIM page: "SIM Protection is a free feature that adds additional security to your account to protect you from the most common instances of SIM swap fraud." Neither page states a price for the account PIN.	Both protections free, by T-Mobile's own pages.
Contest within T-Mobile's pages	https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/sim-protection/	200	"Not available to T-Mobile for Business, T-Mobile Prepaid, or Metro by T-Mobile." "You can find the settings under My account > Profile > Privacy and Notification." "SIM protection does not prevent eSIM transfer on Apple devices"	Disagrees with the fraud page, which gives Prepaid steps for SIM Protection and the menu path Profile → Security → SIM Protection. Kept: the proposal follows the fuller fraud page and says the two pages differ. The eSIM-on-Apple limit is new and worth a clause.

The site no longer blocks reads: both pages returned 200 to curl; the steps load by script, so the full text needed headless Chrome.

Proposed replacement for the T-Mobile item in step 3 of content/cybercrime-do.html:

html <li>T-Mobile: T-Life app → Manage → the gear icon → Security → SIM Protection, and turn it on for the whole account. Then Manage → See Plans → Manage add-ons, tick Port Out Protection and submit; repeat for each line. T-Mobile says both are free. For the account PIN: Account → the gear icon → Security → T-Mobile ID → Account PIN/Passcode, on T-Mobile’s network with Wi-Fi off. On Apple devices, SIM Protection doesn’t stop an eSIM transfer.<a href="#s6">6</a></li>

Proposed s6:

html <li id="s6">T-Mobile, <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/help-with-t-mobile-account-fraud">Protect your T-Mobile account from fraud</a> (steps for SIM Protection, Port Out Protection and the account PIN; both protections “a free feature”) and <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/sim-protection/">SIM Protection</a> (the eSIM limit), read 6 Nov 2026. The two pages give different menus and disagree on Prepaid; the steps here follow the fraud page. primary</li>

What would overturn it: T-Life's own menus differing from T-Mobile's help page (a reader with the app can check in a minute), or a later edit of either page.

D. Cybercrime: wire transfers and Regulation E (proposal only; page not edited)

Claim	URL	Fetch result	Exact quote	Verdict
Wire transfers are excluded from Regulation E	https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-X/part-1005/subpart-A/section-1005.3	200; "up to date as of 11/04/2026. Title 12 was last amended 11/04/2026."	12 CFR 1005.3(c): "The term 'electronic fund transfer' does not include: … (3) Wire or other similar transfers. Any transfer of funds through Fedwire or through a similar wire transfer system that is used primarily for transfers between financial institutions or between businesses."	CONFIRMED.
Which systems count; what stays covered	https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1005/3/ ("This version is the current regulation")	200	Same rule text. Official interpretation 3(c)(3): "1. Fedwire and ACH. If a financial institution makes a fund transfer to a consumer's account after receiving funds through Fedwire or a similar network, the transfer by ACH is covered by the regulation even though the Fedwire or network transfer is exempt." "3. Similar fund transfer systems. Fund transfer systems that are similar to Fedwire include the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS), Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), Telex, and transfers made on the books of correspondent banks."	CONFIRMED.
CFPB consumer page: what to do about a wire	https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/money-transfers-revisions-sept-2023/money-transfer-frequently-asked-questions/ ("Page last modified Dec. 12, 2024")	200	"If you have a problem with your wire transfer, contact the company right away and explain the issue. You can also submit a complaint to the CFPB." On sending abroad: "you have the right to cancel the transfer at no cost if it meets certain conditions: You used a remittance transfer provider to send a remittance transfer, as defined under federal law. The money hasn't been deposited or picked up by the recipient, and you paid for the transfer less than 30 minutes ago." "Separate state law protections may be available to you, depending on how you send the money (for example, through wire transfer, electronic payment, etc.)."	CONFIRMED. The CFPB's consumer pages read today do not themselves say "wires aren't covered by Regulation E"; that comes from the rule.
Ask for a wire recall	https://www.consumerfinance.gov/archive/blog/mortgage-closing-scams-how-protect-yourself-and-your-closing-funds/ (Melissa Yu, 3 June 2019)	200; marked "archived content … may be outdated"	"Contact your bank or wire-transfer company immediately. Ask for a wire recall. Reporting the error as soon as possible can increase the likelihood that you'll be able to recover your money."	CONFIRMED, archived (2019).
Contest: a wire started in online banking	https://goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/blogs/2025/03/cfpb-recounts-statement-of-interest-about-eftas-applicability-to-wire-transfers (law-firm blog, 31 March 2025)	200	"On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau … filed a motion … seeking to withdraw a Statement of Interest the Bureau filed last year, which advanced a 'novel' interpretation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act's (EFTA) applicability to online-initiated wire transfers." The New York attorney general's suit against the bank continued.	Contest kept: the CFPB argued in 2024 that the consumer's side of an online-started wire is covered, then withdrew that in 2025. The case's outcome after March 2025 was not read. Grade: news (secondary).

Proposed addition to the "Money left your account" item in content/cybercrime-do.html, after "A payment you were tricked into sending yourself isn't covered by that rule.":

html A bank wire isn’t covered either: the rule leaves out transfers through Fedwire and similar systems. Ask the bank for a wire recall the same day; the sooner you report, the better the odds. If you sent it abroad through a money-transfer service, federal rules let you cancel free within 30 minutes, if the money hasn’t been picked up.<a href="#s29">29</a>

Proposed s29:

html <li id="s29">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1005/6/">Regulation E §1005.6</a>, <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1005/3/">§1005.3(c)(3)</a> (wires through Fedwire, CHIPS, SWIFT and similar systems excluded; also on <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-X/part-1005/subpart-A/section-1005.3">eCFR</a>, current to 4 Nov 2026), its <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/deposit-accounts-resources/electronic-fund-transfers/electronic-fund-transfers-faqs/">electronic fund transfer FAQs</a> and <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/money-transfers-revisions-sept-2023/money-transfer-frequently-asked-questions/">money transfer FAQs</a> (the 30-minute cancellation), read 6 Nov 2026 primary; its archived 2019 blog on <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/archive/blog/mortgage-closing-scams-how-protect-yourself-and-your-closing-funds/">mortgage closing scams</a> (“Ask for a wire recall”) primary. Whether a wire started in online banking is partly covered is disputed: the CFPB said so in 2024 and withdrew it in March 2025, <a href="https://goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/blogs/2025/03/cfpb-recounts-statement-of-interest-about-eftas-applicability-to-wire-transfers">per Goodwin</a> news.</li>

What would overturn it: an amendment to 12 CFR 1005.3(c)(3), a final CFPB rule or interpretation covering consumer wires, or a court ruling in the New York case that the EFTA reaches online-started wires.

Checks

After the A and B edits: python3 tools/build.py, python3 tools/audit.py --quiet (0 problems), python3 tools/links.py (59 pages, 1179 external URLs, 0 problems). Not committed.

Contest a fact, suggest something, or tell us what’s broken

If someone is in danger right now, don’t use this form. Call your local emergency number (911 in the US). For trafficking: 1-888-373-7888, or text 233733.

No name, no account. Your note goes into the site’s private records, nothing about your browser or connection is stored with it, and the email box is the only way we’d know who you are. The weekly review reads every note, re-reads the original source, and fixes the page if it should. A contested fact and its outcome are listed on Contested, in the review’s words, never yours.

No tracking on any link.Ticks stay on this device.What changedContested