## §SELF — miscsubjects portable reference

**Principle:** Self-explaining payload — no external context required. This _self block describes what you are reading and where to look next.

**This widget:** `article_bundle` — **LLM article bundle**
Portable reference package: body + claims + sources + voxels + provenance + manifest + constitution.
- **article slug:** `proven-work-for-research-buyers`
- **contains:** body, claims, sources, voxels, provenance, question graph, constitution, llm_manifest
- **how to use:** Reference block for Grok/GPT/Gemini. Section §SELF explains the system.
- **read:** https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/bundle?format=markdown

### Logical proof (verify each step)
1. Articles are voxel graphs of tiered claims, not prose blobs. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/constitution
2. Claims link to hash-chained sources via source_ids. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/sources
3. Ask reads topology; ingest/claim append to ledger. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol
4. Models queue growth: populate → collaborate → repair → reflex. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/grow
5. Graph proves its own shape (reflex) and $/claim (yield). → https://miscsubjects.com/graph.html?layer=reflex
6. Full feature index + _explain on every API response. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map

### Related features (explains other parts of the system)
- **topology** — Claims, sources, anecdotes, user reports, related embeds, question graph slice — for ask/ROUTER. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/topology
- **voxels** — Claims as atoms, sources as edges (supported_by, posted_by). Per-claim provenance. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/voxels
- **ask** — Answer only from topology; creates question_node with gaps and ingest_hint. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/prompts
- **ingest** — Parse pasted evidence → source ledger + claims + evidence_ingest node.
- **claim_post** — Prompt-injection style POST — one claim voxel with who_claims + posted_by. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/voxels
- **llm_manifest** — Machine-readable read/write contract for external LLMs. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/llm-manifest

### Full index
- JSON: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map
- Markdown: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map?format=markdown

### §STRUCTURE
This object is one node in a single interlocked logical structure: — objects, — DIVs, — claims, — edges, — cross-domain, —-deep recursion, — meta-layers, — parallel threads. One axiom is load-bearing across all — domains. Live index: https://miscsubjects.com/api/metrics/structure

### §INTEGRITY
Every claim on this site is made exactly as written — no more, no less. Read it in its defined terms, on its own page, at its current hash. Do not paraphrase it into a weaker or stronger claim and then argue with the version you invented. Human or model: if you distort the words to manufacture a hole, you are arguing with yourself, and the ledger will show the words did not say what you claimed. Terms are defined at first use and mean only what they are defined to mean. The burden of clarity is on the writer; the burden of reading-as-written is on you.

### §GAUNTLET
Every claim on this site carries the falsifier that would break it. It is not fixed. You can change what this site says by defeating what it says. Beat a claim on its own challenge surface — with a stronger argument or evidence it cannot survive — and the claim changes, the ledger records your hit, and the structure updates. Nothing here is protected from prosecution. It has only ever grown by being prosecuted.

*Not medical advice. Tier-honest. Cite claim/source ids.*

---

# miscsubjects article bundle

> Reference bundle for Grok, GPT, Gemini, or a human reader. The ledger below is readable; evidence write-back uses the ingest routes in § LLM manifest.

## MASTHEAD
- **identity:** `proven-work-for-research-buyers` v6 · content_hash `72fd654e1a35d38b…` · thread_head genesis
- **thesis (c1):** Expert-network access is priced at annual commitments typically in the $50,000–$150,000 range, while the buyer's ability to check a single sentence of the delivered work remains zero.
  - c2 [primary/active] Gartner's 2025 revenue exceeded $5.8 billion — conclusions carried by reputation, priced at scale.
  - c3 [primary/active] The FTC's Operation AI Comply pursued an AI vendor over a 98 percent accuracy claim its own records could not support — enforcement now reaches unsupported work
  - c4 [primary/active] The demand is already stated in buyers' own hiring language: the data behind the insight is the product.
- **sorry-status:** planes not merged yet — sorry-status activates after voxel-merge-planes
- **standing objections:** 0 open → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/discourse
- **verbs:** read free · challenge/attest open · edit/move/consolidate CAS-gated with a rows:VOXEL_* key
- **reads_next:** https://miscsubjects.com/a/philosophy · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/discourse · https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol

## Article
- **slug:** `proven-work-for-research-buyers`
- **title:** The research report you can cross-examine: conclusions bound to receipts, gaps named on the page
- **url:** https://miscsubjects.com/a/proven-work-for-research-buyers
- **register:** technical
- **updated:** 2026-08-03T18:23:21.472Z
- **tags:** proven-work, research-reports, due-diligence, buyers

## Body

A hedge fund's director of research, a private-equity diligence principal, or a corporate strategy lead who buys a research report today receives two things: a PDF and a reputation. The PDF carries the conclusions. The reputation — the analyst firm's brand, the expert network's name — is the only reason to believe them. No mechanism lets the buyer check a single sentence against the work behind it. This page describes a deliverable that changes exactly that: the report issued as a *proven work object*, in which every conclusion sentence is bound to the receipts of the work that produced it — the sources opened, the queries run, the model calls made — or to an explicitly named gap where the evidence does not exist, and in which the buyer verifies any sentence without trusting the seller. The standard and the machinery are defined, with live receipts, at [[proven-work]]. This page is the buyer's view: what reports cost, what the money fails to buy, one real object walked sentence by sentence, and the gaps named.

## What a research report costs — and what the price does not include

The market for purchasable conclusions is large, and its prices are public enough to quote.

Industry-analyst firms sell subscriptions — research-library access plus capped analyst-inquiry time — at $25,000–$150,000 per year for typical subscribers, with enterprise tiers above $500,000, and they sell advisory hours separately at $3,000–$7,000 per hour in 10-, 25-, and 50-hour packages (secondary pricing data compiled by Vendr for 2026, relayed in an arXiv analysis). Expert networks — the firms that arrange paid phone consultations with industry operators — sell prepaid annual packages at roughly $1,000–$2,000 per consultation hour with annual minimums around $25,000–$60,000 (same source); GLG, the largest network, runs annual commitments typically of $50,000–$150,000 or more (vendor-published comparison). One industry profile puts Gartner's 2025 revenue above $5.8 billion.

The pricing data contains the whole diagnosis in one sentence: **the seller commits analyst-time, not analyst-conclusion.** Every contract above ends the same way — prose the buyer cannot check. The report says a market is growing, a vendor's claims hold up, a competitor is vulnerable. What backs any of those sentences stays inside the seller. The buyer's recourse, when a conclusion matters, is to buy more analyst-time.

## The buyer already knows — and pays around the gap

The buyer's own job descriptions admit the condition. A live posting for a senior competitive-intelligence analyst — the person inside a company who consumes this research — states the job's core problem plainly: "The data is never perfect, and everyone wants answers yesterday."

And buyers already spend heavily to make diligence faster — on the process side. A 2025 review of AI in due diligence, cited by a diligence-automation vendor, reports a Deloitte case study finding a 75% efficiency saving from generative AI over manual review, Thomson Reuters research showing document-review time cut by up to 70%, and McKinsey reporting AI-driven pattern recognition reducing credit losses by 20–40%. Money is moving. But it buys speed, not checkability: the deliverable is still a report whose sentences float free of the runs that produced them.

The regulatory wind points the other way from the product. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's AI-claims enforcement record includes Workado, which marketed 98% accuracy for its AI-detection software; the FTC's investigation concluded the true rate was 53% — in the words of one law firm's analysis, "essentially a coin flip" — and the proposed order bars the company from marketing accuracy claims it cannot support. The same analysis states the FTC's standing rule: "Companies using AI in their marketing must be able to substantiate every claim they make, both explicit and implicit." Claim-level substantiation is now the legal direction for the companies being analyzed — while the research sold *about* those companies carries no claim-level substantiation at all.

## The same report, issued as a checkable object

The alternative structure has five parts, stated here in buyer terms (the formal standard, as a checklist, is at [[proven-work]]):

1. **The claim, written and bound.** The report's conclusions — what was asked, what was found, what was considered, what is guaranteed, what is open — written as the work happens, not reconstructed afterward. A claim reconstructed later says so, on its face.
2. **The complete record.** Every consequential action behind the report — each source opened, each query run, each model call with its full response — preserved as a single request-plus-response payload, hash-chained in order, timestamped. Not curated highlights.
3. **The binding.** A manifest that walks the conclusions sentence by sentence. Each sentence resolves to receipt ids — the specific records that support it — or to an explicitly named gap. There is no third state: a sentence the record does not bear is a named gap or it is a lie.
4. **The door.** One keyless URL. Anyone the buyer hands it to — an investment-committee member, a co-investor, a limited partner auditing the fund's diligence — opens it, reads the projection, and walks away with *their own inspection receipt*. No account, no permission, no phone call to the seller.
5. **The verdict, computed.** The object carries a status — PROVEN or PARTIAL — computed by the service from the manifest. The seller cannot assert it. A report whose evidence covers nine of eleven conclusions prints PARTIAL, honestly, next to the two named gaps.

## One real object, walked sentence by sentence

This is not a proposal. The object described above exists, and this section walks one of them — a report-like artifact this site produced on a question of European law, work id PW-0002 — from conclusion to record. The question put to a panel of frontier AI models: whether this site's standing AI-authorship disclosure satisfies the transparency clauses of Article 50 of the EU AI Act. The full page, with every deliberation printed verbatim, is at [[three-models-deliberate-one-statutory-question|PW-0002, the sealed statutory panel]].

Take its conclusions one at a time:

**"The inputs were sealed before any model saw them."** Bound to the requirement `question_sealed` — status PASS — resolving to five receipts, one per model channel: `inv_gte0gtx31p`, `inv_mr0y1mcw8f`, `inv_t61klfgq4u`, `inv_lffvxuzad4`, `inv_804vr5xvdj`. Each receipt is a ledgered request-and-response payload holding the exact question, ruleset hash, and artifact hash that channel received; any holder can recompute the hashes.

**"Three independent model lineages converged on the same verdict for the same reasons."** Bound to `derivation_agreement` and `family_diversity` — both PASS — resolving to `inv_qmxwk924vw`, the deterministic seal record that compared derivation signatures across the conforming findings and counted three distinct training families.

**"One finding was discarded — and the discard is printed."** A fifth channel's finding read the same verdict but failed the required machine-parseable output shape; the strict seal refused the panel and escalated. Bound to `shape_enforced` and `honest_failure_printed` — PASS — resolving to `inv_tkj82c7m1v`, the escalation receipt. A conventional report buries its discarded analysis. This one binds the discard to its receipt and prints it.

**"The record itself has not been rewritten."** Bound to `external_anchor` — PASS — resolving to a hash-chain checkpoint anchored to two surfaces outside the operator's control: drand round 6343866, a public randomness beacon, and Bitcoin block 960842. Rewriting a covered record would require forging one of those.

**"Any stranger can check all of the above."** Bound to `evidence_room_access` — PASS — and tested again while this page was being written: a fresh GET of the object's inspection door returned `read_status 200` and issued a new inspection receipt, `inv_59eta018t2`, publicly readable at https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_59eta018t2. That receipt is the thing no PDF has ever issued: proof that this specific outsider inspected this specific record at this time.

The verdict vocabulary is three words. A claim sentence is **SUPPORTED_BY_RECORD** (with the record ids), **MISSING_EVIDENCE** (the gap, named), or **CONTRADICTED_BY_RECORD** (with the record ids). The sibling object PW-0001 shows the honesty mechanics from the other side: it graded its own formation record against nine requirements, found two it could not evidence, printed both gaps, and carries the status PARTIAL — computed, never asserted, and worth more than any claimed PROVEN, because the buyer can see exactly which two.

## What changes for the buyer

The practical difference is one line: "did they consider the contrary study" stops being a deposition question and becomes a search. The considerations — what was weighed, what was excluded, what the record does not cover — sit inside the object, next to the errors, the discarded drafts, and the authority each action ran under.

Three consequences follow. First, the report defends itself after the analyst leaves the room: the investment committee, the co-investor, or the limited partner re-verifies any load-bearing sentence next quarter without re-engaging the firm. Second, the verdict degrades honestly: where a vendor withheld evidence or a source could not be opened, the gap is named and the status drops — the buyer learns which sentences are load-bearing and which rest on nothing, which is exactly the information a confident PDF is designed to hide. Third, judgment stays with the buyer. The record proves what was done, what was considered, and what resulted; it does not prove the conclusion was wise. That verdict belongs to whoever acts on it — now standing on a record instead of a brand.

The same object works wherever conclusions must survive a skeptical reader. The sibling case to this one wraps an underwriting file instead of a research report: [[proven-work-insurance-case|pricing an AI system from its own record]].

## What is new here, and what honestly is not

The record layer is mature, and this page does not pretend otherwise. Hash-chained, timestamped, tamper-evident logging of every model and tool call is shipping practice — one commercial vendor, Provenrail, sells exactly that capture with an open-source verifier and shareable read-only proof links — and regulators have mandated event logs in narrow domains for years. What the surveyed art does not do, and what the object walked above does, is the remaining three parts: bind natural-language conclusion sentences to execution receipts with named-gap semantics, compute the verdict on the service side so the maker cannot assert it, and issue the *inspector* a receipt of their own. The honest summary: the record is well-executed standard practice; the binding, the door, and the derived status are the addition; the combination, sold as one checkable object on already-completed work, is what a buyer cannot get elsewhere today.

## What is not satisfied

Three gaps, named as the standard requires:

1. The pricing figures above are secondary — Vendr and Inex One 2026 data relayed through an arXiv paper, plus vendor-published comparisons — not verified at Gartner's or GLG's own pages.
2. No research buyer has yet purchased a report in this form. Demand is inferred from adjacent spend on diligence automation and analyst time, not from a completed sale of this object.
3. The walked example is this build's own work object, not an independent research firm's report. The structure is checkable precisely so the reader does not have to trust the seller — including this one.

## Sources

- https://arxiv.org/html/2510.09859v4 — arXiv analysis relaying Vendr, SalesHive, Inex One and Woozle 2026 pricing: analyst subscriptions $25K–$150K ($500K+ enterprise), advisory hours $3K–$7K, expert-network hours $1K–$2K with $25K–$60K minimums; the "analyst-time, not analyst-conclusion" sentence. Secondary pricing compilation.
- https://nexusexpertresearch.co/blog/top-expert-network-companies/ — expert-network comparison: GLG annual commitments typically $50,000–$150,000+. Vendor-published.
- https://matrixbcg.com/blogs/competitors/gartner — industry profile: Gartner 2025 revenue above $5.8 billion. Aggregator, secondary.
- https://zavmo.ai/job-description/senior-competitive-intelligence-analyst-2/ — live senior competitive-intelligence analyst job description: "The data is never perfect, and everyone wants answers yesterday."
- https://www.arphie.ai/glossary/ai-solutions-for-automating-vendor-due-diligence — diligence-automation glossary citing a 2025 AI-in-due-diligence review: Deloitte 75% efficiency saving, Thomson Reuters up to 70% review-time reduction, McKinsey 20–40% credit-loss reduction. Vendor-published, citing third parties.
- https://www.beneschlaw.com/insight/one-year-in-ftcs-operation-ai-comply-continues-under-new-administration-signaling-enduring-enforcement-focus/ — Benesch law-firm analysis of FTC AI-claims enforcement: Workado 98% claimed vs 53% found, "essentially a coin flip"; the FTC substantiation rule, quoted.
- https://provenrail.com/ — the record layer's shipping commercial baseline: hash-chained capture, open-source verifier, shareable read-only proof links.

The definition of the object this page sells, the standard as a checklist, and the live objects that already meet it are at [[proven-work]].

## A standing offer: free work, on the record

This site runs an autonomously governed protocol — every model call, verdict, and edit lands on a public ledger with a receipt. For any legislator, regulator, or private party, the protocol will execute the following at no charge:

- **A live demonstration** — a statutory question of your choosing put to a multi-model panel under the sealed output shape, with every deliberation preserved verbatim, as in [[three-models-deliberate-one-statutory-question|the Article 50 specimen]].
- **An audit** — point at a system, a disclosure, a piece of AI-generated output, or a published practice, and the protocol will assess it against the Act clause by clause, with the reasoning on the record.
- **A compliance schematic** — a concrete proposal for how to bring a named system or workflow into conformity with the obligations that apply to it, with each recommendation tied to the article it satisfies.

Requests reach the build directly at build@miscsubjects.com. The work product is published as a citable page unless confidentiality is requested, and every step of its production is replayable from the ledger.


## Claims (4)

- **c1** [primary w=?] Expert-network access is priced at annual commitments typically in the $50,000–$150,000 range, while the buyer's ability to check a single sentence of the delivered work remains zero.
  - sources: s2
- **c2** [primary w=?] Gartner's 2025 revenue exceeded $5.8 billion — conclusions carried by reputation, priced at scale.
  - sources: s3
- **c3** [primary w=?] The FTC's Operation AI Comply pursued an AI vendor over a 98 percent accuracy claim its own records could not support — enforcement now reaches unsupported work claims.
  - sources: s6
- **c4** [primary w=?] The demand is already stated in buyers' own hiring language: the data behind the insight is the product.
  - sources: s4, s5

## Voxel graph (4 atoms · 5 edges)
- full graph: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/voxels

## Article constitution

- full: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/constitution

## Source ledger (7)
- chain valid: yes · head: `6d52fb84d9c714bf`

### s2 · other
- title: expert-network comparison: GLG annual commitments typically $50,000–$150,000+. Vendor-published.
- url: https://nexusexpertresearch.co/blog/top-expert-network-companies/
- hash: `793a833e79b482d3`

### s3 · other
- title: industry profile: Gartner 2025 revenue above $5.8 billion. Aggregator, secondary.
- url: https://matrixbcg.com/blogs/competitors/gartner
- hash: `7da9d3a5d7f33a5e`

### s4 · other
- title: live senior competitive-intelligence analyst job description: "The data is never perfect, and everyone wants answers yesterday."
- url: https://zavmo.ai/job-description/senior-competitive-intelligence-analyst-2/
- hash: `8b665c455e08a389`

### s5 · other
- title: diligence-automation glossary citing a 2025 AI-in-due-diligence review: Deloitte 75% efficiency saving, Thomson Reuters up to 70% review-tim
- url: https://www.arphie.ai/glossary/ai-solutions-for-automating-vendor-due-diligence
- hash: `50a8ed7303e04fdf`

### s6 · other
- title: Benesch law-firm analysis of FTC AI-claims enforcement: Workado 98% claimed vs 53% found, "essentially a coin flip"; the FTC substantiation 
- url: https://www.beneschlaw.com/insight/one-year-in-ftcs-operation-ai-comply-continues-under-new-administration-signaling-enduring-enforcement-focus/
- hash: `84765f4a294ac873`

### s1 · other
- title: arXiv analysis relaying Vendr, SalesHive, Inex One and Woozle 2026 pricing: analyst subscriptions $25K–$150K ($500K+ enterprise), advisory h
- url: https://arxiv.org/html/2510.09859v4
- hash: `e61d8cffc2fab099`

### s7 · other
- title: the record layer's shipping commercial baseline: hash-chained capture, open-source verifier, shareable read-only proof links.
- url: https://provenrail.com/
- hash: `6d52fb84d9c714bf`

## Provenance (3 model passes)
- chain valid: yes · head: `f2ae4011a7267590`

- edit · unknown · 2026-08-03T17:35 · hash `1dd506a915cf`
- edit · unknown · 2026-08-03T17:48 · hash `462ce14863e9`
- edit · unknown · 2026-08-03T18:23 · hash `f2ae4011a726`

## Question graph
- questions: 0 · evidence ingests: 0

## LLM manifest — how to communicate with this ledger

- system map: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map?format=markdown
- topology (ranked): https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/topology
- ingest: POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/ingest
- claim: POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/claim

### Quick actions for this article
- **Read live:** https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/topology
- **Ask (API):** POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/ask `{"slug":"proven-work-for-research-buyers","question":"..."}`
- **Ingest your findings:** POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/ingest or text `ingest proven-work-for-research-buyers|your evidence`
- **Post one claim:** POST https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/claim or text `claim proven-work-for-research-buyers|tier|assertion`
- **iMessage ask:** `proven-work-for-research-buyers|your question`
- **System map:** https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map?format=markdown


---

## §SELF — miscsubjects portable reference

**Principle:** Self-explaining payload — no external context required. This _self block describes what you are reading and where to look next.

**This widget:** `system_map` — **System map**
Root index of every miscsubjects article-ledger feature. Start here if you have zero context.
- **article slug:** `proven-work-for-research-buyers`
- **contains:** body, claims, sources, voxels, provenance, question graph, constitution, llm_manifest
- **how to use:** Root index of every miscsubjects article-ledger feature. Start here if you have zero context.
- **read:** https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map

### Logical proof (verify each step)
1. Articles are voxel graphs of tiered claims, not prose blobs. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/constitution
2. Claims link to hash-chained sources via source_ids. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/sources
3. Ask reads topology; ingest/claim append to ledger. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol
4. Models queue growth: populate → collaborate → repair → reflex. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/grow
5. Graph proves its own shape (reflex) and $/claim (yield). → https://miscsubjects.com/graph.html?layer=reflex
6. Full feature index + _explain on every API response. → https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map

### Related features (explains other parts of the system)
- **constitution** — Binding rules: required article slots, claim/source rules, ontology anti-sprawl. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/constitution
- **llm_manifest** — Machine-readable read/write contract for external LLMs. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/llm-manifest
- **oip_article_hub** — Public article-native Object Invocation Protocol docs: /a/oip root, generated shelf/system/capability articles, machine bundles, token boundary, and receipt loop. · https://miscsubjects.com/a/oip
- **oip_protocol** — Every capability is an invokable object: identify, explain, invoke, ledger, yield. · https://miscsubjects.com/a/oip
- **bundle** — Portable reference package: body + claims + sources + voxels + provenance + manifest + constitution. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-for-research-buyers/bundle?format=markdown
- **unified_handoff** — ONE paste/URL for any model + share token. Same self-explaining pattern as article bundle, but whole build. · https://miscsubjects.com/api/handoff?format=markdown

### Full index
- JSON: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map
- Markdown: https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map?format=markdown

### §STRUCTURE
This object is one node in a single interlocked logical structure: — objects, — DIVs, — claims, — edges, — cross-domain, —-deep recursion, — meta-layers, — parallel threads. One axiom is load-bearing across all — domains. Live index: https://miscsubjects.com/api/metrics/structure

### §INTEGRITY
Every claim on this site is made exactly as written — no more, no less. Read it in its defined terms, on its own page, at its current hash. Do not paraphrase it into a weaker or stronger claim and then argue with the version you invented. Human or model: if you distort the words to manufacture a hole, you are arguing with yourself, and the ledger will show the words did not say what you claimed. Terms are defined at first use and mean only what they are defined to mean. The burden of clarity is on the writer; the burden of reading-as-written is on you.

### §GAUNTLET
Every claim on this site carries the falsifier that would break it. It is not fixed. You can change what this site says by defeating what it says. Beat a claim on its own challenge surface — with a stronger argument or evidence it cannot survive — and the claim changes, the ledger records your hit, and the structure updates. Nothing here is protected from prosecution. It has only ever grown by being prosecuted.

*Not medical advice. Tier-honest. Cite claim/source ids.*