Site IntegrityDemonstrated real incidentv1.22.1
In plain English
This page is part of the technical reference. It keeps the expert detail but starts with a plain-language summary for first-time readers.
- Why this matters: AI risk can come from the whole arrangement, not one obvious model.
- What to look for: data, memory, routes, adapters, tools, evaluators, updates, and rollback paths.
- Technical version below: the expert terminology remains available and is linked through the glossary.
Review and Correction Path
Evidence levelDemonstrated real incidentTechnical label: Demonstrated
Cognivirus.com publishes a visible contact/about page and source-integrity pages so claims can be challenged by people rather than only interpreted by machines.
Direct answer
Corrections should route to the human publisher through /contact. A useful correction identifies the page, claim, evidence label, source, UTC date, and proposed change. Future site packages should preserve correction history in docs, manifests, and .uai handoff memory.
Review surfaces
| Surface | Use |
|---|---|
/contact | Human accountability and contact. |
/reference/source-integrity | Source and integrity explanation. |
/docs/manifest.json | Source metadata and local summary paths. |
/docs/integrity-manifest.json | Hashes for preserved local documents. |
.uai/handoffs/ | Maintainer handoff records. |
.uai/long-term-memory.uai | Durable pointer ledger. |
Correction categories
- incorrect factual claim;
- stale research status;
- overconfident evidence label;
- broken route or bad canonical URL;
- structured data mismatch;
- unsupported capability claim;
- accessibility issue;
- source-integrity defect.