What each refresh found, and what it did not publish.

Researched a second model family for six creators that each hold exactly one, intending to take the exactly-one-family count from 30 down to 24, and published none of them. Thirty claims were proposed, all of kind add, carrying 69 evidence entries; every quote was machine-checked as a contiguous verbatim substring of the exact bytes its contentHash names, with a positive and a negative control on the harness, and all 69 passed. Origin discipline was not the blocker: every page came from an origin the repository already approves, and gate-source-approval exited 0 on all six bundles. Dates were not the blocker either, which is what separates this run from the breadth tranche the day before: each proposed family took its firstReleaseDate from a document distinct from the one dating the release it ships with, so no family date was derived from its own release. The panel was the blocker. Under the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar the provenance rubric rejected all 15 family and release claims, and the reason is nearly uniform: releaseSchema and familySchema both require status, and no model card or announcement read in this run states a lifecycle term that forces one member of the enum. An announcement verb — "We are releasing the following three models on Hugging Face" — is not an availability state, and a value filled from what is usual for the field is a guess wearing a vocabulary term. The same rubric rejected accessType: open-weight wherever it rested only on a licence name, since a licence is not a statement that weights are downloadable; it rejected two Falcon 3 parameter counts read out of the model name; and it rejected the Molmo family and release dates, which rested on a page dateline no quote carried. Two further rejections came from other rubrics and are worth recording because they found real defects rather than duplicating provenance: consistency applied the project’s own validateDataset to a clone with all 30 claims applied and showed that the EleutherAI and Cohere releases assert weight-bearing access types with no licence, which releaseSchema refuses outright; and editorial found that the Cohere weights card states "This model is governed by a CC-BY-NC License with an acceptable use addendum" in prose, so presenting those weights as openly available while omitting the licence understated a non-commercial restriction. The 15 source records were accepted unanimously and dropped anyway, because with every citing record rejected they would have landed as orphans. The dataset is unchanged, the exactly-one-family count stays at 30, and this entry is the only edit.

Researched six long-tail creators to take the catalogue from 34 organizations to 40 and published none of them. Every fact was fetched and hashed from origins this repository already approves — huggingface.co, github.com, arxiv.org and opensource.org — never read from a search result, and gate-source-approval passed on all six bundles, so origin discipline was not the blocker. The panel was the blocker, and beneath it a structural one. Under the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar the provenance rubric rejected 46 of 54 claims, most of them because the record asserted fields no attached quote stated: lifecycle status, modality lists, downloadable weights, and above all a release date. No approved-origin page states a release date for any of these six models. No model card states a release date for the model it describes. All six carry dates, and every date found belongs to a category that is not a release date: a training-data cutoff (Aleph Alpha, cutoff date 04/2023); Hub revision tags (AI Singapore, Current Version: `14.04.2025` at line 29, and a revision="18.12.2024" argument at line 123 under the comment "Specify the revision here"); paper years in BibTeX blocks (Nous Research, Liquid AI and Xiaomi, year={2025}); benchmark names (Reka AI, AIME-2024; Xiaomi, AIME 2024 and AIME 2025 across six table rows); values inside worked examples and generated output (Liquid AI, "date": "2023-11-20" in a tool-call sample; Aleph Alpha, the founding of Rome and a 2016 census figure in sample completions); EU legal instrument numbers that only resemble slashed dates (Aleph Alpha, Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679); and a changelog line dating a different model (Xiaomi, [2025.05.30], which dates MiMo-7B-RL-0530 and not the MiMo-7B-RL this run targeted). Each is named with its card and line so the exclusion can be checked. This states what the dates found are and why none is a release date; it is not a claim that no other date exists on these pages. The Hub API states createdAt, which is repository creation and not a stated launch; arXiv states when a paper was submitted, which is a fact about the paper and not the model; and the two GitHub repository READMEs that do carry dated release news date other models — SEA-Guard and a March 2026 embedding family for AI Singapore, and MiMo-7B-RL-0530 rather than MiMo-7B-RL for Xiaomi. releaseSchema requires releaseDate, and the schema is explicit that a field no approved source states means the record is withheld rather than guessed, so no release could be written for any creator. The eight claims the panel did accept were three sources, three publishers and two conflict records; applying them would have left sources cited by nothing, which validate.test.ts forbids, and a creator with no release renders in neither branch of the tree. They were dropped rather than applied. The dataset is unchanged and this entry is the only edit.

A second attempt at Cohere, run after PR #459 amended the provenance rubric to treat vocabulary mapping as a recording step rather than an inference. The amendment worked and is not why this run publishes nothing: the provenance reviewer stated in terms that "mapping Live to current would be a permitted recording step at the same entity level", conceding the exact objection that sank run 2026-08-27-4f1c9e. Three different blockers stopped it instead. No release claim could be assembled at all — familySchema.firstReleaseDate is a day-precision isoDate and no approved origin states one for any Cohere family, while the one model with a day-precision date, Command A+, is released under two deployment routes and so requires a license object whose osiApproved field no approved origin states. The Command A+ family claim that was proposed was rejected 0-of-3, all three rubrics independently holding that Cohere's own words "the last model in the Command A family" make it a model inside a family rather than a family. The organization and publisher claims were rejected 2-of-3 by provenance on the same ground as last time — no quote states the schema classification "company" — which PR #459 did not address. Two source claims were accepted unanimously and still were not applied: with no record citing them they would be unreferenced sources, which validate.test.ts forbids. The dataset is unchanged; this entry is the only edit.

Researched four long-tail creators to populate the Others branch of the tree and published none of them. Every fact came from the origins PR #445 approved for these creators, fetched and hashed rather than read from search results. Microsoft and xAI were withheld before review: no approved-origin page states an access type or modality set for MAI-Thinking-1, and both are required fields, while x.ai now self-describes as "SpaceXAI LLC" on both of its approved origins and no approved page names a Grok family. Mistral AI and Cohere reached a review panel across five rounds. A final round re-scouted Cohere against a model reference on an already-approved origin that carries an explicit Status column and a machine-readable specification table, which answered the earlier objections about status, categories and the creator relationship; the resulting organization and release claims were accepted by the consistency and editorial rubrics but not by provenance, so they did not reach the unanimous 3-of-3 long-tail bar. Because model-tree.ts renders a creator only when it has at least one release, the organizations and families that were accepted would have added records that render nowhere, so they were dropped rather than applied. The dataset is unchanged; this entry is the only edit.