{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ClaimReviewCollection", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/profile/factcheck", "datePublished": "2026-04-25", "author": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Collaborative Fact-Checking Working Group", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev", "did": "did:web:veritas-working-paper.pages.dev" }, "specVersion": "RFC-FACTCHECK-v0.2", "claims": [ { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Veritas Protocol working paper is currently in v0.2 draft, not a finalised specification.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-001", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:status-v02-draft", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "technology:software:protocol-status", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/paper/", "datePublished": "2026-04-25", "method": "self-declaration; first-party authoritative", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group editorial team", "did": "did:web:veritas-working-paper.pages.dev" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "Self-declared by the working group as the authoritative party on its own draft status." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "Four independent reviewers (super-reviewer, athena, sentinel, aegis) audited the v0.2 working paper between 2026-04-21 and 2026-04-22, producing approximately 320KB of critical feedback.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-002", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:critical-review-completed", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "technology:software:critical-review", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/", "sources": [ { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/super-review-whitepaper.md", "role": "primary-evidence" }, { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/athena-logical-critique.md", "role": "primary-evidence" }, { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/sentinel-threat-model.md", "role": "primary-evidence" }, { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/aegis-consistency-qa.md", "role": "primary-evidence" } ], "method": "self-declaration with reviewer outputs published in full", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group editorial team" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "verdictsByDomain": { "scientific-default": { "verdict": "VERIFIED", "validators": 0, "lastChecked": "2026-04-22" } } }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The defensible Year-3 base-case revenue for the Veritas Protocol economy is estimated at $8M to $24M, comparable to UMA Protocol's six-year trajectory; the aspirational $695M to $2.78B tier in earlier drafts is not supported by oracle-network comparable data.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-003", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:revenue-base-case", "claimType": "PROJECTION", "topic": "economics:projection", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/investment/research-oracle-economy.md", "sources": [ { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/investment/research-oracle-economy.md", "role": "primary-evidence" } ], "method": "comparative-network-economics", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group quantitative analysis" }, "primaryVerdict": "SUPPORTED", "qualifications": "Projection. Subject to AI-laboratory adoption, validator network growth, and several other inputs documented in the source. The aspirational tier is explicitly disavowed as base-case." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "Veritas Protocol's plural-verdict design admits validators from mutually-hostile communities — including state-aligned, religious, dissident, and sub-cultural — by architectural choice. The protocol does not gatekeep validator participation.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-004", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:permissionless-write", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "technology:software:protocol-design", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/ideas/01-mutually-hostile-validators.md", "method": "self-declaration of design intent", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "Subject to a narrow operational-refusal list (RFC-FACTCHECK § 6 + the working paper § 7.1) covering CSAM-verification and four other operationally-incoherent shapes. Specific edge cases are under v0.3 review." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Working Group commits to not editing, removing, or rephrasing CRITICAL or HIGH findings produced by the four independent reviewers in the published critical review.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-005", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:editorial-commitment", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "media-and-journalism:editorial-policy", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/CRITICAL-REVIEW.md", "method": "self-declaration of editorial policy", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "The working group has classified findings as A (has answer), B (partial answer), or C (open question) in the synthesis. The classification is editorial; the original findings remain unchanged in the four reviewer reports." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Veritas Protocol architecture proposes a hybrid blockchain-plus-federation design, with Ethereum Layer 2 (Base) for settlement and a federation of aggregators for fast reads.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-006", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:hybrid-architecture", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "technology:cryptocurrency:protocol-architecture", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/paper/", "method": "self-declaration of architecture as documented in the v0.2 paper", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "verdictsByDomain": { "engineering-pragmatic": { "verdict": "VERIFIED", "validators": 1, "lastChecked": "2026-04-22" }, "scientific-default": { "verdict": "SUPPORTED", "validators": 1, "lastChecked": "2026-04-22" } }, "qualifications": "v0.2 architecture; subject to v0.3 architectural revisions per the published v0.3 plan." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Working Group's published consensus profile (CPML) commits to: high weight on scientific consensus for empirical questions; moderate technical optimism; moderate and discriminating crypto acceptance (rejecting speculation and hype, accepting engineering primitives); positive valuation of multiculturalism and cultural diversity as resilience-building; foundational anchoring in the post-WWII universal-human-rights tradition.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-007", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:cpml-values", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "philosophy-and-ethics:editorial-values", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/profile/working-group-cpml.json", "method": "self-declaration of editorial values", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "These are the Working Group's editorial values; they do not bind the protocol to any specific frame in the validator pool. Other CPMLs with different values are equally legitimate users of the protocol." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Veritas Protocol economic model has a single load-bearing dependency: AI-laboratory subscription revenue. If no major AI lab integrates during Phase II with measurable hallucination-reduction results, the validator-compensation model has to shrink dramatically.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-008", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:single-pillar-risk", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "economics:risk", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/", "sources": [ { "uri": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/critical-review/super-review-whitepaper.md", "role": "primary-evidence" } ], "method": "documented risk acknowledgement", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "Acknowledged as the single biggest project risk. v0.3 work commits to tiered revenue projections and a fallback model for the case where AI labs do not integrate." }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The Veritas Protocol is currently not accepting investment under any specific structure. The investment-opportunity descriptions on the website are descriptive of future structures, not solicitations.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-009", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:no-active-fundraise", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "economics:legal-status", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/investment/", "method": "self-declaration; legal-disclaimer status", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED" }, { "@type": "ClaimReview", "claimText": "The CPML protocol specification (RFC-CPML-v0.1) is a working draft with informal Path C operational semantics; the formal-grounding path (Path A: Value-based Argumentation Framework, Path B: probabilistic-logic, Path C: engineering-pragmatic) will be selected before v1.0.", "claimHash": "sha256:placeholder-claim-010", "claimGroupId": "urn:claim:veritas-wg:cpml-formal-status", "claimType": "FACT", "topic": "technology:software:specification-status", "language": "en", "url": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/spec/cpml/RFC-CPML-v0.1.md", "method": "self-declaration", "checkerIdentity": { "name": "Working Group" }, "primaryVerdict": "VERIFIED", "qualifications": "v0.3 of the working paper commits to selecting one of the three paths. v0.1 of CPML is explicitly informal." } ], "events": "https://veritas-working-paper.pages.dev/profile/factcheck-events.json", "_metadata": { "claimHashesAreLpaceholders": "Real SHA-256 hashes are computed and replaced when this document is finalised; current hashes are clearly-marked placeholders pending the canonicalisation reference implementation.", "purpose": "Demonstration of RFC-FACTCHECK-v0.2 by the Working Group. Self-declared claims about the project, verified to the standard the protocol describes.", "auditOpportunity": "Third-party validators are explicitly invited to attest these self-claims. Attestations should be JWS-signed against the claim hashes and posted to validator infrastructure following RFC-FACTCHECK § 8." } }