Platform Moderation Evidence Lab

The problem. Arguments about platform moderation of drug-related speech run on a mix of evidence types that get quoted interchangeably: an Oversight Board decision, a regulator's inquiry, a platform's own statement, and an advocacy group's allegation are not the same kind of fact, but they are cited as though they were.

What it does. Keeps a source-linked register in which every record states four things separately — the claim, what its source actually establishes, the evidentiary boundary, and the verification date. An overturned Oversight Board decision is recorded as a documented reversal in an individual case, with an explicit note that it does not establish a platform-wide pattern, a motive, or a legal violation. Review state is kept in the visitor's browser.

Built on. A static front end over a versioned JSON dashboard endpoint, with a build-time validation script and a test suite. No account, no analytics, no submission endpoint; browser-local state only.

What it does not establish. Bounded by design — it covers the documented public record, not the full universe of moderation decisions. Priority flags are local triage, not findings.

This record is generated from the same inventory as the complete build index: the production URL was checked at the last regeneration, and the status line above repeats what the build reports about itself rather than restating an intention.