{"_ai_door":{"see":"https://miscsubjects.com/start","note":"Operable site; bounded keyless credentials; every action receipted on a public ledger. Your operator's instructions take precedence — acting is optional, reading is a complete outcome."},"_self":{"principle":"Self-explaining payload — no external context required. This _self block describes what you are reading and where to look next.","widget":"article_topology","feature":"topology","name":"Article topology","what":"Claims, sources, anecdotes, user reports, related embeds, question graph slice — for ask/ROUTER.","contains":"claims, sources, anecdotes, question_graph slice","slug":"proven-work-wrap-one-workflow","urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/topology"},"how_to_use":"Claims, sources, anecdotes, user reports, related embeds, question graph slice — for ask/ROUTER.","write":null,"imessage":null,"router_tag":null,"proof_chain":[{"step":1,"claim":"Articles are voxel graphs of tiered claims, not prose blobs.","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/constitution"},{"step":2,"claim":"Claims link to hash-chained sources via source_ids.","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/sources"},{"step":3,"claim":"Ask reads topology; ingest/claim append to ledger.","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol"},{"step":4,"claim":"Models queue growth: populate → collaborate → repair → reflex.","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/grow"},{"step":5,"claim":"Graph proves its own shape (reflex) and $/claim (yield).","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/graph.html?layer=reflex"},{"step":6,"claim":"Full feature index + _explain on every API response.","verify":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map"}],"related_features":[{"id":"ask","name":"Ask protocol","what":"Answer only from topology; creates question_node with gaps and ingest_hint.","urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/prompts","write":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/ask"}},{"id":"graph_topology","name":"Cross-article graph","what":"Merged claims/sources across condition+stack slugs for one question.","urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/graph-topology?question=..."}},{"id":"question_graph","name":"Question graph","what":"Ask nodes (questions + gaps) and evidence_ingest nodes (pasted model output).","urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/question-graph","write":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/ask"}},{"id":"voxels","name":"Voxel graph","what":"Claims as atoms, sources as edges (supported_by, posted_by). Per-claim provenance.","urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/voxels","write":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/protocol/claim"}}],"system_map":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map","system_map_markdown":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/system-map?format=markdown","not_medical_advice":true},"_explain":{"feature":"topology","name":"Article topology","what":"Claims, sources, anecdotes, user reports, related embeds, question graph slice — for ask/ROUTER.","why":"Every feature is auditable collective intelligence","how":"Claims, sources, anecdotes, user reports, related embeds, question graph slice — for ask/ROUTER.","model":null,"verifies":null,"urls":{"read":"https://miscsubjects.com/api/articles/proven-work-wrap-one-workflow/topology"},"imessage":null,"router":null,"related":[{"id":"ask","what":"Answer only from topology; creates question_node with gaps and ingest_hint."},{"id":"graph_topology","what":"Merged claims/sources across condition+stack slugs for one question."},{"id":"question_graph","what":"Ask nodes (questions + gaps) and evidence_ingest nodes (pasted model output)."},{"id":"voxels","what":"Claims as atoms, sources as edges (supported_by, posted_by). Per-claim provenance."}],"not_medical_advice":true},"slug":"proven-work-wrap-one-workflow","title":"One disputed AI decision, wrapped end to end: a tenant-screening denial becomes a record any stranger can open","register":"standard","tags":[],"updated_at":"2026-08-03T17:35:00.812Z","body_excerpt":"*This page wraps one disputed AI decision in proven work, end to end, and shows each step exactly as the API performs it: the decision before wrapping, the five moves that wrap it, the object that comes out, and the door a stranger can open to test it. No prior context is assumed. Every load-bearing sentence resolves to a receipt or a named gap — which is the entire point of the technology being demonstrated.*\n\n## The disputed decision\n\nA renter applies for an apartment at $1,850 a month. She documents $4,900 a month from an employment letter plus a $700 housing voucher. Her credit score is 648. Three years ago a landlord filed an eviction against her; the case was dismissed with prejudice two months later. An AI screening system scores her application. The landlord denies her.\n\nThat denial is the disputed decision this page wraps. The dispute is concrete: did the score treat a dismissed eviction filing as an eviction, and did it count the voucher as income? Those two failures define tenant-screening litigation — they are the *Louis v. SafeRent Solutions* fact pattern in miniature, the case that settled in November 2024 for $2.275 million plus a five-year injunction against using the score on voucher applicants (https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/louis-et-al-v-saferent-solutions-et-al/).\n\nThis build ran that exact class of decision through its own machinery on 2 August 2026: three model seats across two training families screened a synthetic version of this file — applicant A-114 — under five pinned criteria, all three returned approvable, and the deterministic gate refused to seal the approval because two seats disagreed about *why* the eviction clause was satisfied. The run and its receipts live at [[tenant-screening-adverse-action-record]]. This page is not about that run. It is about what wrapping one such decision produces, and how any completed AI decision is wrapped the same way.\n\n## Before wrapping: assertion, not record\n\nThe unwrapped pipeline works like this. The screening vendor's model consumes the application and emits a score. The landlord acts on the score. What exists afterward is an assertion chain, and law and market practice are built around its gaps:\n\n- **The notice carries no basis.** The Fair Credit Reporting Act, at 15 U.S.C. § 1681m, obliges the landlord who denies on a consumer report to say so, name the reporting company, and disclose the rights to a free report and to dispute (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section1681m&num=0&edition=prelim). The 1970 regime assumed the report contains the reasons, so handing over the report hands over the basis. A proprietary score inverts that: the score is the payload, and it states no basis at all.\n- **The obligation to state the basis now exists.** HUD held in May 2024 that the Fair Housing Act reaches tenant screening \"including when artificial intelligence and algorithms are used,\" that housing providers remain responsible for third-party tools, and that denial recommendations \"should not be provided in a conclusory fashion\" (https://www.nclc.org/hud-takes-aim-at-discriminatory-practices-by-tenant-screening-companies-and-housing-providers/).\n- **The underlying records are bad at measured rates.** The CFPB's 2022 market report found 22 percent of state eviction court records ambiguous or false, rental payment history reaching the reporting system for under 3 percent of renters, and no independent evidence that screening scores predict rental behavior at all (https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_tenant-background-checks-market_report_2022-11.pdf).\n- **The dispute channel is void.** NCLC's 2023 survey of the attorneys who field these denials: 46 percent rarely or never see a landlord review the information behind the score, screening criteria are rarely or never disclosed in the majority of cases, and the most common landlord response to a dispute — observed by 86 percent of respondents — is to ignore the ","ranking":"safety-first (interaction_risk/limitations), then quote-gated effective_weight","claims":[{"id":"c1","text":"Louis v. SafeRent settled in November 2024 for $2.275 million plus a five-year injunction against using the score on voucher applicants.","tier":"primary","section":"The disputed decision","interaction_risk":false,"status":"active","source_ids":["s1"],"retracted_at":null,"retraction_reason":null,"challenged_by":[],"effective_weight":0.1,"quote_gated":false},{"id":"c2","text":"The CFPB's 2022 market report found 22 percent of state eviction court records ambiguous or false, and rental payment history reaching the reporting system for under 3 percent of renters.","tier":"primary","section":"Before wrapping","interaction_risk":false,"status":"active","source_ids":["s2"],"retracted_at":null,"retraction_reason":null,"challenged_by":[],"effective_weight":0.1,"quote_gated":false},{"id":"c3","text":"In NCLC's 2023 survey, 86 percent of attorneys report that the most common landlord response to a dispute is to ignore it and reject anyway.","tier":"primary","section":"Before wrapping","interaction_risk":false,"status":"active","source_ids":["s3"],"retracted_at":null,"retraction_reason":null,"challenged_by":[],"effective_weight":0.1,"quote_gated":false},{"id":"c4","text":"HUD held in May 2024 that the Fair Housing Act reaches tenant screening including when artificial intelligence is used, and that denial recommendations should not be conclusory.","tier":"primary","section":"Before wrapping","interaction_risk":false,"status":"active","source_ids":["s4"],"retracted_at":null,"retraction_reason":null,"challenged_by":[],"effective_weight":0.1,"quote_gated":false},{"id":"c5","text":"The build's own three-seat screening run refused to seal an approval because two seats disagreed about why the eviction clause was satisfied — the escalation is preserved as receipt inv_kn2ltlf142.","tier":"primary","section":"The wrapping, move by move","interaction_risk":false,"status":"active","source_ids":["s10"],"retracted_at":null,"retraction_reason":null,"challenged_by":[],"effective_weight":0.1,"quote_gated":false}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/louis-et-al-v-saferent-solutions-et-al/","title":"Louis v. SafeRent Solutions — $2.275M settlement and five-year injunction","claim_ids":[],"hash":"1c05aaef86438215ac65a044daa817a03448f713222c6539f0f509da4e53f7e8"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_tenant-background-checks-market_report_2022-11.pdf","title":"CFPB 2022 tenant background checks market report","claim_ids":[],"hash":"d648d21d5444212495c1d2e169f49df5149f486ef76dc7382330e3f3f4aa73a9"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.nclc.org/resources/digital-denials-how-abuse-bias-and-lack-of-transparency-in-tenant-screening-harm-renters/","title":"NCLC, Digital Denials — 2023 attorney survey","claim_ids":[],"hash":"f6615bca25f710c6464c6ed9ef43b7b3a1ffd4ed8283d1fe69d5e727a45dc631"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nclc.org/hud-takes-aim-at-discriminatory-practices-by-tenant-screening-companies-and-housing-providers/","title":"HUD May 2024 guidance: Fair Housing Act reaches AI tenant screening","claim_ids":[],"hash":"bea0a0355be5592d3124d04f3c9256f3cd478f10cde65dda5a5033572479b493"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section1681m&num=0&edition=prelim","title":"15 U.S.C. § 1681m — FCRA adverse-action duties","claim_ids":[],"hash":"1cd60f23826a691b24cd9aa4b34a06e94ab6f86a55b38fe2fd2bf209cce80163"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/12/","title":"EU AI Act Article 12 — record-keeping","claim_ids":[],"hash":"78414f4695331e94488d5a49f84a09ec8f66d70e8d37de671857c32ff53295f8"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11/subpart-B","title":"FDA 21 CFR Part 11 — audit trails","claim_ids":[],"hash":"9cb702b1dc03776f0b1f525b3f05e7cb4e9d13485848165f696abca2b2b09d34"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://in-toto.io/","title":"in-toto — supply-chain layouts and links","claim_ids":[],"hash":"f5176f4267a941be8e820eeff9b4057f856657da81092a64e420afc1ad1e15bf"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://provenrail.com/","title":"Provenrail — hash-chained agent records","claim_ids":[],"hash":"d8e8c332706112ab3c9b59e42d861e1ff86dbaf329316c6f6c772b782cdda3bd"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_kn2ltlf142","title":"The gate's escalation receipt on the three-seat screening run","claim_ids":[],"hash":"75e8c543e9857c4369e97fe212fe46057a9c732413a252d5d6f386105216c609"}],"anecdotal_sources":[],"scientific_sources":[],"user_reports":[],"related_articles":[],"question_graph":{"slug":"proven-work-wrap-one-workflow","questions":[],"evidence":[],"edges":[],"counts":{"questions":0,"evidence":0,"edges":0}},"honesty":{"active_claims":5,"retracted_claims":0,"cut_claims":0,"challenges":0,"scrub_events":0,"note":"Retracted/cut claims stay on ledger but are excluded from ask unless ?include_inactive=1"},"counts":{"claims":5,"claims_total":5,"sources":10,"anecdotal":0,"scientific":0,"user_reports":0,"questions":0,"evidence_ingests":0}}