{"slug":"benefits-eligibility-determination-record","verification":{"valid":true,"entries":8,"head":"0ddc2a0b2119bdd43cc54e6df4b97518d9e39712df5d460522794fc531d35d8c"},"count":8,"sources":[{"id":"s1","type":"document","title":"Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)","publisher":"Supreme Court of the United States (Cornell LII)","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/254","summary":"Welfare benefits are statutory entitlements protected by procedural due process; termination requires timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for the proposed termination, and an effective opportunity to defend, before the benefits stop.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c1"],"prev":"genesis","hash":"42ef7904d2dc270a0b35b7e2823928cf4c0375f6c3ba60e12ce4c9e56204bcc9"},{"id":"s2","type":"document","title":"Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc., 912 F.3d 887 (6th Cir. 2019)","publisher":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0001p-06.pdf","summary":"Michigan's MiDAS rendered automated unemployment-fraud determinations with no fact-based adjudication; the Michigan Auditor General reviewed over 22,000 of them and found 93% were false positives; penalties ran to quadruple restitution, wage garnishment, and tax-refund interception.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c2"],"prev":"42ef7904d2dc270a0b35b7e2823928cf4c0375f6c3ba60e12ce4c9e56204bcc9","hash":"54738e400d2d61f8c7c2267c109f19ee4fbab55e79a3909772dae02fe8bf9b9d"},{"id":"s3","type":"live_surface","title":"The derivation-agreement gate — effective challenge, mechanised","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/auditable-reasoning-hardened","summary":"Independent models under a pinned rule set must emit clause-by-clause derivations; the gate refuses to authorise when the derivations diverge, even on a unanimous verdict, and escalates to a named human as a permanent record.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c4","c5"],"prev":"54738e400d2d61f8c7c2267c109f19ee4fbab55e79a3909772dae02fe8bf9b9d","hash":"a834afb20d6d75f469b072bcc5cb5d0951f5fecc6bb25ca3d40f61484e4a2733"},{"id":"s4","type":"live_surface","title":"A unanimous verdict, refused on divergent derivation","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_o6s0exhodd","summary":"Three seats returned the same verdict citing the same clauses; two derived it differently, so the gate escalated instead of concluding. The refusal is itself a public receipt.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c6"],"prev":"a834afb20d6d75f469b072bcc5cb5d0951f5fecc6bb25ca3d40f61484e4a2733","hash":"5135d7f063e04b739d9e57201423121dafb26440e1a609562271403cf5d93e4f"},{"id":"s5","type":"live_surface","title":"The genuine APPROVE — unanimous verdict, identical derivation","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_wl0rnh136b","summary":"The clean authorisation on record: every seat fired the same clauses in the same trigger states on the same evidence records.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c6"],"prev":"5135d7f063e04b739d9e57201423121dafb26440e1a609562271403cf5d93e4f","hash":"42f7bd38efe98de12cbe5b9d98affc40a574f215b0b0358335fa965018d86577"},{"id":"s6","type":"live_surface","title":"Calibration, measured: 30 oracle-labelled cases through the production gate","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/adjudication-calibration-study","summary":"Three seats across two model families on 30 hashed synthetic cases: glm-5.2 30/30, kimi-k2.7 29/30, zero wrongful authorisations at the gate across all 30; transport failures counted and structurally unable to authorise.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c7","c8"],"prev":"42f7bd38efe98de12cbe5b9d98affc40a574f215b0b0358335fa965018d86577","hash":"423c42978cb6f5a4d13d7ec09c1f9d992325cfb4151cae9b9b28034ad3a3ccf5"},{"id":"s7","type":"live_surface","title":"The instrument auditing its own input: the rule set was the defect","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_qh3ge2x74b","summary":"A governed seat asked to critique the case file found the rule set stated only a necessary condition where a sufficient one was needed — the divergence was in the specification, not the models.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c9"],"prev":"423c42978cb6f5a4d13d7ec09c1f9d992325cfb4151cae9b9b28034ad3a3ccf5","hash":"4e43896ea23084e03585c4d892fb1083c1b569d6abdae3c72b74163896f3aba7"},{"id":"s8","type":"live_surface","title":"One sealed panel decision, opened","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_7rqy8ywuls","summary":"A complete governed panel decision sealed by the gate and opened as a permanent public receipt — the shape of the record this page proposes as the fair-hearing packet.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c4"],"prev":"4e43896ea23084e03585c4d892fb1083c1b569d6abdae3c72b74163896f3aba7","hash":"0ddc2a0b2119bdd43cc54e6df4b97518d9e39712df5d460522794fc531d35d8c"}]}