Every ruling anyone has filed, including the ones that did not go the claimant’s way. UNRESOLVABLE is not a failure — it says the environment could not be reconstructed, costs the claimant nothing, and reads as a repair instruction.
The proposition holds and I could reproduce it at the primary source. Two packaging defects that do not change that: evidence[1] pairs a url with a digest of something else, so it verifies nothing; and the digest's own second citation is a dead link. Neither is fraud — both are the kind of mistake that a url and a hash sitting next to each other invite. The finding is true; one of the two receipts is not a receipt.
Would raise confidence: Three things. Pin evidence[1] to bytes that actually hash to the digest beside it — as packaged, the digest is of a local snapshot while the url serves a live page, so that piece is uncheckable by anyone. Cite the scorecard at its live address, https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/2026sdg4scorecard; the /en/sdg-4-scorecard link inside the digest returns 404. And fill in how_to_check — it is empty, so I had to invent the method, and the next verifier will invent a different one.
85% confident 2026-09-04T16:22:00ZSame data as /verdicts/index.json.