{
  "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licenseUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "attribution": "ChainChoice (https://chainchoice.io)",
  "url": "https://chainchoice.io/data/corrections.json",
  "what": "Every published correction, newest first, as /methodology/corrections prints it: what was wrong, what was fixed, how it was caught and whether the published order moved. No entry is ever deleted; a correction that was itself wrong gets a follow-up entry.",
  "page": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections",
  "archive": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive",
  "feed": "https://chainchoice.io/api/feed.xml",
  "count": 170,
  "lastLoggedOn": "2026-11-12",
  "fields": {
    "id": "The entry id.",
    "url": "The page that prints the entry in full, with its anchor: the log for the newest two blocks of 20 ids, otherwise the closed archive page of its block. The address never changes once the block leaves the log.",
    "correctedAt": "The day the corrected value was published: the date of the record it cites.",
    "loggedAt": "The day the entry entered the log. Later than correctedAt for an entry copied from a changelog.",
    "type": "factual, scoring, stale_data, recusal or methodology.",
    "severity": "high: a published order or #1 was wrong; material: a published value, score or claim was wrong and the order did not move; minor: a label, a link or text about the arithmetic.",
    "categories": "The category keys it concerns; empty when it is not about a category.",
    "providers": "The provider names it concerns; empty when no provider record was wrong.",
    "whatWasWrong": "What was wrong.",
    "whatWeFixed": "What was fixed.",
    "howWeCaughtIt": "How it was caught, or \"Not recorded\" where the record does not say.",
    "publishedOrder": "Whether the published order moved, as the record measured it.",
    "sources": "The records the entry rests on: a methodology version and change, a data changelog entry, or a file that holds the fix.",
    "approvedBy": "The roster id of the person who approved it (the roster is on /methodology).",
    "reportedBy": "Present when a reader's report led to the entry: the report id and the name the reader asked to be credited by, or null."
  },
  "submissions": {
    "counts": {
      "readerReports": {
        "received": 0,
        "open": 0,
        "corrected": 0,
        "noError": 0,
        "duplicate": 0
      },
      "creditedReaders": 0,
      "providerReplies": 0,
      "misrepresentation": {
        "findings": 0,
        "notesShowing": 0,
        "submissionsSuspended": 0
      }
    },
    "policies": {
      "readerCredit": "When a reader’s report leads to a correction, the entry says so and names the report. The reader is named only if they asked to be; everyone else is counted, never named. No contact detail is ever published.",
      "rightOfReply": "A provider may reply to what we publish about it. The reply is printed beside our verdict on its provider pages, under its name, with the date we received it and the date of the verdict it answers, edited only to remove contact details and links. A reply changes no score, rank or verdict: the code that orders a ranking cannot read these records, and the build fails if it can.",
      "falseInformation": "If we find that a provider gave us false or materially misleading information, its provider pages carry a dated note saying so for 12 months from the finding, and it may not submit replies or evidence until a review restores that right. The finding is logged as a correction, which the note names. The note itself changes no score; what was false is removed and re-read from the provider's own published sources."
    }
  },
  "disputes": {
    "asOf": "2026-11-12",
    "targets": {
      "acknowledgeBusinessDays": 2,
      "reviewDays": 7,
      "decisionP90Days": 14,
      "safetyHours": 24,
      "adherencePct": 95
    },
    "quarters": [
      {
        "quarter": "2026-Q4",
        "received": 0,
        "bySubmitter": {
          "reader": 0,
          "provider": 0,
          "regulator": 0,
          "press": 0
        },
        "byReason": {},
        "open": 0,
        "decided": 0,
        "acknowledgedOnTimePct": null,
        "decisionDaysMedian": null,
        "decisionDaysP90": null,
        "slaAdherencePct": null,
        "safetyCritical": 0,
        "safetyAnsweredIn24hPct": null,
        "accepted": 0,
        "rejected": 0,
        "duplicate": 0,
        "acceptedPct": null,
        "changedScorePct": null,
        "note": "No dispute received this quarter yet, so nothing is measured."
      }
    ],
    "appeals": null
  },
  "corrections": [
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0171",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0171",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "otc_desks"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Gemini eOTC",
        "Cumberland (DRW)",
        "B2C2",
        "Binance OTC & Execution Services",
        "Coinbase Prime",
        "Bitfinex OTC",
        "FalconX",
        "Wintermute OTC"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Gemini eOTC scored 8 for counterparty and client-asset footing, but its counterparty is Gemini NuSTAR, LLC: the NYDFS trust charter belongs to its affiliate Gemini Trust Company, LLC, and Gemini publishes no segregation or no-rehypothecation statement for eOTC assets held against NuSTAR. Cumberland (DRW) scored 4 on the same criterion although it holds a NYDFS licence.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Gemini eOTC now scores 7 and Cumberland (DRW) 7 on that criterion. Gemini eOTC stays first at 80. Each score in this list is measured against the leader’s weighted total, so when Gemini’s fell, other scores rose with no change in their own evidence: B2C2 73 → 75, Binance OTC & Execution Services 66 → 68, Coinbase Prime 65 → 66, Bitfinex OTC 61 → 63, FalconX 55 → 57 and Wintermute OTC 48 → 50. Cumberland (DRW) rises 61 → 68 on its own footing.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The OTC desks review of 10 November 2026, an objection to Gemini’s footing score, and an independent model review run on the first place.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Gemini eOTC stays first at 80; B2C2 moves from third to second, 73 → 75; Cumberland (DRW) moves from seventh to third, 61 → 68; Binance OTC & Execution Services stays fourth, 66 → 68; Coinbase Prime stays fifth, 65 → 66; Bitfinex OTC stays sixth, 61 → 63; FalconX moves from eighth to seventh, 55 → 57; Wintermute OTC moves from ninth to eighth, 48 → 50. Kraken OTC Desk leaves (CC-2026-0170).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-otc_desks",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/otcDesksPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0170",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0170",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "otc_desks"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kraken OTC Desk"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Kraken OTC Desk, second in OTC desks at 77, was ranked on pages whose own terms bar automated reading: Kraken’s general terms (section 9) bar “any web scraping, web harvesting, or data extraction methods” and “any bots, robots, parsers, spiders, scripts” on its services.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Kraken OTC Desk leaves the ranking until a person reads its pages, listed under “Not confirmed”, and its earlier scores are not shown. None of it was found wrong.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every OTC desk’s own terms on 11 November 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Kraken OTC Desk, second at 77, leaves the order; B2C2 moves from third to second (CC-2026-0171 gives every score). In the country lists of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia, where Kraken OTC Desk was first, B2C2 is now first; in Switzerland, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Canada, Japan and Singapore Gemini eOTC stays first.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-otc_desks",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/otcDesks.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0169",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0169",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Symbiosis"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Symbiosis was ranked fifteenth in bridges at 41 on scores read before its native Bitcoin bridge was exploited on 11 September 2026. The attacker minted unbacked tokens from that bridge and took about $336,000; Symbiosis paused the bridge and later recovered 15 BTC (Cointelegraph, 14 September 2026, citing the security firm Blockaid).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Symbiosis is held: no Symbiosis page read on 10 November 2026 says whether its Bitcoin bridge has reopened, so the chains it can move funds between could not be confirmed. It is listed under “Not confirmed” with the exploit, and its earlier scores are not shown until it can be read again.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The bridges review of 10 November 2026 and an independent second reader’s pass the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Symbiosis, fifteenth at 41, leaves the order (CC-2026-0166 gives the order that remains).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-bridges",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/bridges.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0168",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0168",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Hop Protocol"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Hop Protocol stayed in the bridges list after it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026, last at 41.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Hop Protocol is retired from the bridges list. On 10 November 2026 hop.exchange served an unrelated online gambling page, and its app and its route service answered only with errors, as on 30 September and 23 October 2026. Its domain is not linked from this site.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The bridges review of 10 November 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, at the bottom only. Hop Protocol, seventeenth at 41, leaves the order; it was already shown as withdrawn.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-bridges",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusionsRetired/bridges.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0167",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0167",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Jumper Exchange",
        "Squid Router",
        "Orbiter Finance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Jumper Exchange and Squid Router were shown as charging no bridge fee. Squid’s fee page now states a convenience fee on some front-end routes and no rate; LI.FI’s fee FAQ states a 0.25% service fee, which its quote API charges the default integrator but not Jumper’s routes (quoted the same day at 0 to 0.02%).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Neither publishes a rate, so neither is shown with a fee of zero any more; both have also left the ranking until their pages can be read (CC-2026-0166). Orbiter Finance moves from sixth to second, 61 → 64, on its chain coverage (eleven VM families over 74 mainnets, no Bitcoin family); no provider changed a price.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The bridges review of 10 November 2026: the providers’ own fee pages and quotes on the modelled route, read three times that day, and an independent model review run on the top three.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Orbiter Finance moves from sixth to second, 61 → 64; Jumper Exchange (second, 63) and Squid Router (third, 62) leave the order (CC-2026-0166).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-bridges",
        "file:src/lib/alternateProductCatalog.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0166",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0166",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Jumper Exchange",
        "Squid Router",
        "Bungee",
        "Scroll Bridge",
        "Synapse",
        "Stargate",
        "Wormhole",
        "Everclear (formerly Connext)",
        "Relay",
        "Orbiter Finance",
        "Base Bridge",
        "Arbitrum Bridge",
        "Optimism Gateway",
        "zkSync Bridge",
        "deBridge"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Eight bridges were ranked on pages we can no longer read the way this site reads a provider. The terms of Wormhole, Squid Router, Stargate and the Scroll bridge bar reading them with robots, crawlers or scrapers; on 10 November 2026 Jumper’s route comparison opened only after an amount is typed, Bungee’s terms address led to its home page, Synapse’s quote service found no route and Everclear’s site did not open.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Jumper Exchange, Squid Router, Bungee, Scroll Bridge, Synapse, Stargate, Wormhole and Everclear (formerly Connext) leave the ranking until they can be read, each listed under “Not confirmed” with its reason, and their earlier scores are not shown. None of them left because of anything we found wrong about it. Optimism Gateway, read again on 10 November 2026 from its own documentation, now scores 2 for speed (was 3) for its seven-day withdrawal and 9 for trust (was 10): 55 → 52.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every bridge’s own terms and pages on 10 and 11 November 2026, checked by an independent second reader.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Relay stays first at 86. Orbiter Finance moves from sixth to second, 61 → 64 (CC-2026-0167); Base Bridge moves from fifth to third at 61; Arbitrum Bridge moves from seventh to fourth at 55; Optimism Gateway moves from eighth to fifth, 55 → 52; zkSync Bridge moves from twelfth to sixth at 50; deBridge moves from fourteenth to seventh at 46. Jumper Exchange (second, 63), Squid Router (third, 62), Bungee (fourth, 62), Scroll Bridge (ninth, 53), Synapse (tenth, 51), Stargate (eleventh, 51), Wormhole (thirteenth, 50) and Everclear (formerly Connext) (sixteenth, 41) leave the order, as do Symbiosis (CC-2026-0169) and Hop Protocol (CC-2026-0168). Each of the 27 country lists (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates) now reads Relay, Orbiter Finance, Base Bridge, Arbitrum Bridge, Optimism Gateway, zkSync Bridge and deBridge, in that order.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-bridges",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/bridges.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0165",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0165",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "gift_cards"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bitrefill",
        "Coincards",
        "CoinGate Gift Cards",
        "SpendCrypto",
        "BitGift",
        "Bidali",
        "Coinsbee",
        "CryptoRefills"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Bitrefill, Coincards, CoinGate Gift Cards, SpendCrypto and BitGift are no longer ranked in the crypto gift card list, and with them gone the list has too few products to rank: we could read three of its eight in full, and a ranking needs five. None of them left because of anything we found wrong about it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "On 11 November 2026 the terms of Bitrefill and SpendCrypto bar automated reading, BitGift’s robots.txt asks AI agents not to read its pages, and the pages of Coincards and CoinGate turned our reader away. We follow what a site asks, so we could not read their prices and terms the way this site reads a provider. Their earlier results were not found wrong. The list shows Bidali, Coinsbee and CryptoRefills A to Z with what we read, with no rank, until five can be read: a person reads two more by hand, or a provider allows our reader.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every gift card store’s own terms and robots.txt on 10 and 11 November 2026, which left fewer products than a ranking needs.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Crypto gift cards publish no order while they are not ranked; until 12 November 2026 they had Bitrefill first (81), Coincards second (72), CryptoRefills third (71), Coinsbee fourth (62), CoinGate Gift Cards fifth (61), SpendCrypto sixth (53), Bidali seventh (51) and BitGift eighth (41). In the 27 country lists (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates) Bitrefill was first in each, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-gift_cards",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/giftCards.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0164",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0164",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-12",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "tax_software"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Koinly",
        "Blockpit",
        "CoinTracker",
        "ZenLedger",
        "Waltio",
        "Ledgible",
        "Summ (formerly Crypto Tax Calculator)",
        "CoinLedger",
        "Divly",
        "CoinTracking.info",
        "TokenTax"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Koinly, Blockpit, CoinTracker, ZenLedger, Waltio, Ledgible and Summ (formerly Crypto Tax Calculator) are no longer ranked in the crypto tax software list, and with them gone the list has too few products to rank: we could read four of its eleven in full, and a ranking needs five. None of them left because of anything we found wrong about it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Their own terms bar reading their pages with bots, crawlers or other automated means, and Koinly’s and CoinTracker’s pages also turned our reader away with a block page; Summ’s help centre asks readers like ours, in its robots.txt, not to read its pages. We follow what a site asks, so we could not read their prices and terms the way this site reads a provider. Their earlier results were not found wrong. The category is listed without an order until five can be read: a person reads one more by hand, or a provider allows our reader.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every tax software provider’s own terms and robots.txt on 10 and 11 November 2026, which left fewer products than a ranking needs.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Crypto tax software publishes no order while it is not ranked; until 12 November 2026 it had Koinly first (81), Blockpit second (80), CoinLedger third (78), Divly fourth (78), Summ (formerly Crypto Tax Calculator) fifth (77), CoinTracker sixth (76), Waltio seventh (75), ZenLedger eighth (73), CoinTracking.info ninth (72), TokenTax tenth (66) and Ledgible eleventh (62). In the 27 country lists (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates) Koinly was first in each, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-12-pushf-tax_software",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/taxSoftware.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0163",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0163",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "structured_products"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Idle Yield Tranches (Senior AA and Junior BB), second in structured products, said in the present tense that the Junior tranche on its largest pool \"holds about $21 against about $297,000 of Senior (0.0072%)\", a figure read on 28 September 2026, and did not say that Idle’s own homepage now leads with \"Idle is now Pareto – the credit coordination protocol\". On 10 November 2026 that pool held 78,692.82 USDC, with Junior worth about $41 against about $78,641 of Senior (0.052%).",
      "whatWeFixed": "The row dates its stale $21/$297,000 sentence and publishes the 10 November contract read, with the pool’s contract address and block, and the rebrand as a watch-out. Idle keeps its \"Counterparty backing the payoff\" score of 6 and second place because that criterion’s mid band is \"a disclosed first-loss tranche\" and the same near-zero cover that set 6 on 28 September (0.0072%, now 0.052%) is present today, while pool shrinkage and the Pareto rebrand are not inputs to any structured products criterion.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: Idle’s homepage and the Yield Tranche contracts read on-chain, checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: Idle Yield Tranches stays second in structured products at 70, behind SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) at 82 and ahead of Ithaca Protocol at 69.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/structuredProductsPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0162",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0162",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "liquid_lockers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted), second in liquid lockers, quoted its sponsor’s governance document without saying that the source can no longer be fetched or that the sponsor has since announced a sunset: on 10 November 2026 dinero.xyz says \"pxETH and other ecosystem tokens are now in a sunset phase following our acquisition by Plume\" and does not name pxCVX, docs.dinero.xyz returns 404 and forum.dinero.xyz no longer resolves.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The sponsor’s sunset notice, which does not name pxCVX, is published as a dated watch-out with the contract read (PirexCvx not paused and its owner unchanged at Ethereum block 26387606, with deposits, redemption initiations and redemptions in the preceding 24 hours) and the dead sources named. Pirex keeps its \"What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all\" score of 4 because the 0-2 rung is about the base lock being paused, deprecated or stripped, which Convex is not, and the 3-4 rung already scores the absence of any contingency.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: Dinero’s homepage, its docs and forum hosts, and the PirexCvx contract read on-chain, checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: the order Convex Finance (cvxCRV) 79, Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) 77, Yearn yCRV 76 stands, as it would even at a score of 3 on that criterion, where the last key of the tie-break chain, the product name, keeps Pirex second.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/liquidLockersPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0161",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0161",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "transaction_simulation"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MetaMask Transaction Shield"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "MetaMask Transaction Shield's record did not mention the infrastructure incident MetaMask disclosed, identified on 28 September 2026, in which \"approximately 0.385 ETH in rewards was diverted\" in MetaMask Staking; the MetaMask wallet row already carries it in its incident record.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Transaction simulation tools are not ranked since 11 November 2026. Transaction Shield is listed by name on that page and on its own row page, with why it was not read this time, but its record is not shown, so no watch-out is printed for it; the incident is already in the MetaMask wallet row's incident record, which is unchanged. MetaMask's notice (metamask.com/news/user-update, updated 5 November 2026) says the incident did not involve Transaction Shield.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: MetaMask’s own notice, read again and checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: transaction simulation tools are not ranked, and the order of crypto wallets is unchanged.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/transactionSimulationPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0160",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0160",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "onchain_monitoring"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Hexagate (by Chainalysis)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Hexagate (by Chainalysis), third in monitoring platforms, carried no line about Chainalysis’s October–November 2026 security incident: on 4 November Chainalysis’s status page said users \"do not have access to the Hexagate frontend, the API, and GateSigner\" while monitoring and alert delivery kept running, and all customer API keys were invalidated.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The row publishes the dated incident as a watch-out, quoting the status page as read on 10 November 2026, and its review line names the read. No monitoring platforms criterion names a vendor breach or an outage, so no score and no position moves.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: status.chainalysis.com and Chainalysis’s incident post, checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: Hexagate (by Chainalysis) stays third in monitoring platforms at 72, behind Hypernative (79) and BlockSec Phalcon (78) and ahead of Forta Firewall (68).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/onchainMonitoringPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0159",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0159",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "wallet_screening"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Chainalysis"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Chainalysis, second in wallet screening tools, carried no line about the security incident it disclosed on 30 October 2026, in which, by its update of 4 November, \"names, usernames, password hashes and live tokens for all Chainalysis users were exposed to a malicious actor\", and KYT and Address Screening were offline from 4 to 7 November. Our 3 November re-read recorded the incident for the watch-outs, but the step that applies a re-read to a row writes no incidents, so it never reached the page.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The row publishes the dated incident as a watch-out, with \"as applicable\" kept in the password-reset sentence, and its review line names it. No wallet screening criterion names a vendor breach or an outage, so no score and no position moves; Chainalysis states it has \"no evidence that any investigations data has been accessed or Chainalysis attribution data has been manipulated\".",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: Chainalysis’s incident post and status page, checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: Chainalysis stays second in wallet screening tools at 82, behind TRM Labs (83) and ahead of Elliptic (78).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/walletScreeningPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0158",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0158",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "wrapped_assets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "tBTC (Threshold Network)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "tBTC (Threshold Network), first in wrapped assets, carried no line about the pause of its bridge: Threshold paused tBTC deposits, mints and new redemption requests from 30/31 October to 9 November 2026, and Aave V3 Ethereum Core froze the tBTC reserve on 31 October. Its review line read \"read again 10 November 2026\" with no incident, and our record of that read said \"incidents none_found\", which was false.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The row now publishes the 30/31 October to 9 November pause and the Aave freeze (still frozen at Ethereum block 26387780, 23:24 UTC on 10 November 2026) with the honest caveat that we could not read Threshold’s own notices or the pause mechanism, and the record’s \"incidents none_found\" is replaced with the dated incident. tBTC keeps its \"Who is allowed to redeem\" score of 8 and first place because that criterion grades who may redeem and the on-chain timeout, not a suspension, and the gap to Lombard Staked BTC (LBTC) (criteria averages 8.24 against 6.42) cannot be closed by any rung the event could honestly reach.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An incident follow-up on 10 November 2026: LlamaRisk’s post on Aave’s governance forum and the Aave V3 reserve read on-chain, checked by an independent second reader the same evening.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: tBTC (Threshold Network) stays first in wrapped assets at 81, ahead of Lombard Staked BTC (LBTC) at 70.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-inc1-incident-lines",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/wrappedAssetsPool.ts",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-11-10-wrapped_assets.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0157",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0157",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Zeal"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "CC-2026-0116 left out one move: Zeal also moved from eighth to seventh in crypto cards. Its list of the rows that move up as rows leave named Coinbase Card (seventh to sixth) and Plutus Card (ninth to eighth) only.",
      "whatWeFixed": "This entry adds the move. CC-2026-0116 stays as it was published. Measured on rankings.json against the base CC-2026-0116 names (df6baed55): RedotPay Card, sixth, left the list, and Coinbase Card, Zeal and Plutus Card each moved up one.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An internal audit of the corrections log (2026-11-11) checked every move each recent entry names against rankings.json and data/country-orders.json.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; this names a move CC-2026-0116 measured and did not list.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/corrections-0157-follow-up.test.ts",
        "file:public/data/rankings.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0156",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0156",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "wrapped_assets",
        "liquid_staking",
        "p2p_exchanges",
        "otc_desks",
        "launchpads"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Binance-Peg BTCB",
        "Binance Staked ETH (WBETH)",
        "Binance P2P",
        "Binance OTC & Execution Services",
        "Binance Launchpool"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Five rows whose exit runs through Binance withdrawals carried no warning after Binance's notices from 30 October 2026 described unauthorised withdrawals, and its status page still showed partial withdrawal suspensions for BTC, ETH, USDT and BNB on 10 November 2026: BTCB, WBETH, Binance P2P, Binance OTC and Binance Launchpool.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each now opens its watch-outs with the warning its Binance exchange row carries, dated 11 November 2026: redeeming BTCB or WBETH, or withdrawing funds held on the other three, may be delayed or unavailable until the suspensions are lifted.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A reader-harm sweep of the last 45 days (HARM-4), checked the same day against the Binance exchange record and the rekt.news account.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-binance-dependent-withdrawal-warning",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/wrappedAssetsPool.ts",
        "file:src/lib/alternateProductCatalog.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-sweep.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0155",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0155",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "dex",
        "flash_loans"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Balancer",
        "Balancer V3",
        "Balancer V2"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Balancer was ranked as an operating DEX and its V3 and V2 vaults as operating flash-loan venues after BAL holders voted to wind it down: its pools began moving to withdrawals-only on 30 October 2026, and bug-bounty cover ended that day.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The three rows carry a sunset date of 30 October 2026 and open with a dated warning: Balancer is shutting down, so do not add liquidity or build a new flash-loan integration on it, and withdraw a Balancer LP position. No page draws a Visit for them.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A reader-harm sweep of the last 45 days (HARM-4), verified the same day against the rekt.news account of 14 October 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. In decentralised exchanges, Balancer falls from tenth at 43 to eleventh, last, at 41, and Raydium moves from eleventh to tenth, its score unchanged at 41. In flash loans, Balancer V3 falls from seventh at 61 to eighth at 41, and Balancer V2 from eighth at 61 to seventh at 41; both now sit at the floor. Balancer is removed from the decentralised exchange list, and Balancer V2 and Balancer V3 from the flash loan list, on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, which list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-balancer-wind-down",
        "file:src/lib/alternateProductCatalog.ts",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/flashLoansPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-sweep.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0154",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0154",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "tokenised_bonds"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Mercado Bitcoin"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Mercado Bitcoin's held row said only that its pages could not be read, while its hot wallets and customer deposit addresses had been drained on 2 November 2026 and withdrawals and crypto transfers were still closed on 10 November.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Its \"Not confirmed\" line now reads \"Re-read pending, page walled: drained on 2 November 2026; on 10 November withdrawals and crypto transfers were still closed\", and its exclusion text and the tokenised-bonds refusal open with a stopped warning: do not send crypto to a Mercado Bitcoin deposit address until transfers are back.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A reader-harm sweep of the last 45 days (HARM-4), verified the same day against the rekt.news account of 10 November 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed: Mercado Bitcoin has not been ranked since 10 November 2026.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-exchange-mercado-bitcoin-drained",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/exchange.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-sweep.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0153",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0153",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Electrum"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Electrum's record carried no warning after Electrum's security advisory of 24 October 2026 said that in versions before 4.8.3 a malicious server can trick a user into paying an attacker through a fee bump, and that the attack is happening in the wild.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Electrum's record now opens its watch-outs with a warning dated 11 November 2026: update to Electrum 4.8.3 or later now, and until then verify the output addresses and amounts of every transaction before signing, fee bumps included.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A reader-harm sweep of the last 45 days (HARM-4), verified the same day against Electrum's own security advisory.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-wallet-electrum-rbf-advisory",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/walletPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-sweep.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0152",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0152",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "offramps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Banxa",
        "Bitpanda",
        "Transak",
        "Kraken",
        "Ramp Network",
        "Coinbase",
        "MoonPay"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Off-ramps were ranked across seven products. On 11 November 2026 four of them were held as not confirmed: Kraken, ranked first, Ramp Network, ranked second, and MoonPay, ranked sixth, because their own terms bar reading their pages with automated means (CC-2026-0137, CC-2026-0136, CC-2026-0135), and Coinbase, ranked third, because its terms page answered only behind a bot check and has not been read (CC-2026-0146). We could read three of the seven in full, and a ranking here needs five.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Off-ramps are not ranked right now. The page lists Banxa, Bitpanda and Transak alphabetically, each read in full on 22 October 2026, with no rank, no first place and no scores, and it says what left and why. Its country pages forward to that page. The category is ranked again when five off-ramps can be read. If a person's read of Coinbase's user agreement finds no clause that bars automated reading, Coinbase's hold is reverted in a later correction, which leaves four off-ramps: still one short of a ranking.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The same review as CC-2026-0137, which left fewer off-ramps than a ranking needs.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Off-ramps publish no order while they are not ranked; until 11 November 2026 they had Kraken first (82), Ramp Network second (76), Coinbase third (58), Transak fourth (58), Banxa fifth (53), MoonPay sixth (53) and Bitpanda seventh (44). In the 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) Kraken was first in 26 and Ramp Network in Japan, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-offramps",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/offramps.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0151",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0151",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bleap Card",
        "Crypto.com Card",
        "Plutus Card",
        "Zeal",
        "ether.fi Cash",
        "MetaMask Card",
        "Nexo Card",
        "Coinbase Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Crypto cards were ranked across eight products. On 11 November 2026 four of them were held as not confirmed: ether.fi Cash, ranked first, MetaMask Card, ranked third, and Nexo Card, ranked fourth, because their own terms bar reading their pages with automated means (CC-2026-0140, CC-2026-0138, CC-2026-0139), and Coinbase Card, ranked sixth, because Coinbase's terms page answered only behind a bot check and has not been read (CC-2026-0145). RedotPay Card has been held since 10 November 2026 (CC-2026-0116). We could read four of the nine in full, and a ranking here needs five.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Crypto cards are not ranked right now. The page lists Bleap Card, Crypto.com Card, Plutus Card and Zeal alphabetically, each read in full on 10 November 2026, with no rank, no first place and no scores; Zeal keeps its dated line that its app is winding down. The page says what left and why, and its country pages forward to it. The category is ranked again when five crypto cards can be read. If a person's read of Coinbase's user agreement finds no clause that bars automated reading, Coinbase Card's hold is reverted in a later correction, five cards are read and the category is ranked again.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The same review as CC-2026-0140, which left fewer crypto cards than a ranking needs.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Crypto cards publish no order while they are not ranked; until 11 November 2026 they had ether.fi Cash first (79), Crypto.com Card second (77), MetaMask Card third (69), Nexo Card fourth (68), Bleap Card fifth (60), Coinbase Card sixth (52), Zeal seventh (43) and Plutus Card eighth (41). In the 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) ether.fi Cash was first in 26 and Crypto.com Card in Canada, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/cryptoCard.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0150",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0150",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "transaction_simulation"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "GoPlus Security",
        "Kerberus (Pocket Universe)",
        "Scam Sniffer",
        "Tenderly",
        "MetaMask Transaction Shield",
        "Blockaid",
        "Rabby Wallet",
        "Phantom",
        "Webacy"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Transaction simulation was ranked across nine products. On 11 November 2026 five of them were held as not confirmed because their own terms bar reading their pages with automated means: MetaMask Transaction Shield, ranked first (CC-2026-0134), and Blockaid, Rabby Wallet, Phantom and Webacy, ranked second, third, fourth and ninth (CC-2026-0144). We could read four of the nine in full, and a ranking here needs five.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Transaction simulation is not ranked right now. The page lists GoPlus Security, Kerberus (Pocket Universe), Scam Sniffer and Tenderly alphabetically, each read in full on 22 October 2026, with no rank, no first place and no scores, and it says what left and why. Its country pages forward to that page. The category is ranked again when five products can be read.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The same review as CC-2026-0144, which left fewer products than a ranking needs.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Transaction simulation publishes no order while it is not ranked; until 11 November 2026 it had MetaMask Transaction Shield first (81), Blockaid second (69), Rabby Wallet third (69), Phantom fourth (66), GoPlus Security fifth (65), Kerberus (Pocket Universe) sixth (62), Tenderly seventh (58), Scam Sniffer eighth (58) and Webacy ninth (51). In the 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) MetaMask Transaction Shield was first in 26 and Blockaid in the United Kingdom, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-transaction-simulation",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/transactionSimulation.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0149",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0149",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "yield_vaults"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "ether.fi Liquid"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "ether.fi Liquid was ranked sixth in yield vaults on ether.fi's help-centre articles and documentation, read by our research agent on 3 November 2026. ether.fi's terms of use say \"you must not use any robots, spiders, crawlers, scrapers, or other automated tools or interfaces that are not provided by us to access the Website and extract data\", and its help centre and documentation are part of that website, so a read made that way cannot date the row. Each of its four scores is a judgement of what ether.fi discloses, and no other primary source we may read states it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "ether.fi Liquid leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: ether.fi's terms bar robots, crawlers and scrapers on its website.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A permitted-source check of the rows read from sites whose terms bar automated reading: a row stays only if every scored item comes from a source we may read, and none of this row's did.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in yield vaults. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against the published rankings before this change; no score moves. ether.fi Liquid (#6, 62) leaves; Upshift moves #7 58 → #6 58, and the five rows above keep their places (Yearn first). ether.fi Liquid leaves the yield-vault lists of the 24 countries that listed it (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam), where Upshift moves up one; no country's first place changes.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-yield-etherfi",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/yieldVaults.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0148",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0148",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "retail_staking"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kraken ETH Staking"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Kraken ETH Staking was ranked second in retail staking on Kraken's staking page and its staking support article, read by our research agent on 28 October 2026. Kraken's general terms bar \"any web scraping, web harvesting, or data extraction methods\" and \"any bots, robots, parsers, spiders, scripts\" on its sites, so a read made that way cannot date the row. Its commission, its exit wait and the rate it shows are published only on those pages; Kraken's terms documents refer to them without stating them.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Kraken ETH Staking leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Kraken's terms bar bots, scripts and scraping on its pages.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A permitted-source check of the rows read from sites whose terms bar automated reading: a row stays only if every scored item comes from a source we may read, and none of this row's did.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in retail staking. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against the published rankings before this change; no score moves. Kraken ETH Staking (#2, 56) leaves; Lido (stETH) stays first. Coinbase ETH Staking moves #3 55 → #2 55, Revolut ETH Staking #4 54 → #3 54, OKX ETH Staking #5 51 → #4 51, Bitstamp Earn Staking #6 46 → #5 46 and Bybit ETH Staking #7 45 → #6 45. Kraken ETH Staking leaves the retail-staking lists of the 16 countries that listed it (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), and every row below it moves up; no country's first place changes.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-retail-kraken",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/retailStaking.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0147",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0147",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "wrapped_assets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kraken Wrapped Bitcoin (kBTC)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Kraken Wrapped Bitcoin (kBTC) was ranked third in wrapped assets on Kraken's kBTC support article, read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. Kraken's general terms bar \"any web scraping, web harvesting, or data extraction methods\" and \"any bots, robots, parsers, spiders, scripts\" on its sites, so a read made that way cannot date the row. Its reserve-proof score rests only on that article, which is where the reserve address is published, and its custody score needs the custodian's charter, which no other source we may read states.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Kraken Wrapped Bitcoin (kBTC) leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Kraken's terms bar bots, scripts and scraping on its pages.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A permitted-source check of the rows read from sites whose terms bar automated reading: a row stays only if every scored item comes from a source we may read; two of this row's four could be read from Kraken's terms documents, and two could not.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in wrapped assets. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against the published rankings before this change; no score moves. Kraken Wrapped Bitcoin (kBTC) (#3, 67) leaves; tBTC stays first and LBTC second. Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) moves #4 57 → #3 57, SolvBTC (Solv Protocol) #5 52 → #4 52, Coinbase Wrapped BTC (cbBTC) #6 51 → #5 51, Ignition FBTC (Function) #7 48 → #6 48 and Binance-Peg BTCB #8 44 → #7 44. kBTC leaves the wrapped-asset lists of the 26 countries that listed it (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam), and every row below it moves up; no country's first place changes.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-wrapped-kbtc",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/wrappedAssets.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0146",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0146",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "offramps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coinbase"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Coinbase was ranked third in off-ramps on its help pages on selling and withdrawals and its licences page, read by our research agent in October 2026. Coinbase's user agreement, which says how its sites may be used, answered our requests only behind a bot check, which we never bypass, so we have not read whether its terms allow automated reading. A row on terms we have not read cannot be dated.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Coinbase leaves the off-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, page walled: Coinbase's terms page answers only behind a bot check, so we have not read it.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. If a person's read of Coinbase's user agreement finds no clause that bars automated reading, this hold is reverted in a later correction and the row returns on its reads.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every ranked row against the terms of the sites it was read from; Coinbase's terms could not be read.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0152: off-ramps are not ranked right now.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-offramps",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/offramps.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0145",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0145",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coinbase Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Coinbase Card was ranked sixth in crypto cards on its card terms and Coinbase's status page, read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. Coinbase's user agreement, which says how its sites may be used, answered our requests only behind a bot check, which we never bypass, so we have not read whether its terms allow automated reading. A row on terms we have not read cannot be dated.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Coinbase Card leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, page walled: Coinbase's terms page answers only behind a bot check, so we have not read it.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. If a person's read of Coinbase's user agreement finds no clause that bars automated reading, this hold is reverted in a later correction and the row returns on its reads.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every ranked row against the terms of the sites it was read from; Coinbase's terms could not be read.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0151: crypto cards are not ranked right now.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/cryptoCard.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0144",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0144",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "transaction_simulation"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Blockaid",
        "Rabby Wallet",
        "Phantom",
        "Webacy"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Blockaid, Rabby Wallet, Phantom and Webacy were ranked second, third, fourth and ninth in transaction simulation on their own product, help and documentation pages, read by our research agent on 22 October 2026. Each one's own terms bar reading those pages with automated means: Blockaid's bar any automated system, \"including without limitation, 'robots' and 'spiders'\"; Rabby's bar scraping \"except as permitted by a Paid Plan\"; Phantom's bar scraping \"from the App or Site\"; and Webacy's bar navigating its service \"with any tool, software, agent, engine, or other means other than through Webacy's provided interfaces\". A read made that way cannot date a row, and none of the four rows had a scored item from a source we may read.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The four leave the ranking and are listed under \"Not confirmed\", each with a reader line that its terms bar automated reads, and their earlier scores are not shown. Each returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A second review of the rows next in line for first place after MetaMask Transaction Shield was held (CC-2026-0134), against each row's own terms, before any new order was published.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0150: transaction simulation is not ranked right now. No new first place was published.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-transaction-simulation",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/transactionSimulation.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0143",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0143",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "cdp_stablecoins"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Aave GHO"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Aave GHO's pricing and verification notes quoted Aave's documentation on how GHO's rate may change: \"no more than 500bps per 2-day period, up to a maximum 25% APR\". aave.com's terms allow automated access only where it is expressly permitted, so that page cannot be cited, and a read of the contracts on chain found a one-day delay on the rate steward and no 25% cap.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The sentence leaves both notes; they keep the on-chain rate reads of 22 October 2026. No new claim on the rate control is made until a second reader confirms it on chain.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the rows read from sites whose terms bar automated reading, checked against the contracts on chain.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/catalog/cdpStablecoinsPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0142",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0142",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "onramp"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MoonPay"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "MoonPay was ranked third in on-ramps on its pricing disclosure, terms, licences and help pages, read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. MoonPay's terms of use say \"you will not use an anonymizing proxy, or any other automatic devices, spider or manual processes to copy or monitor our websites without our prior written permission\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "MoonPay leaves the on-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: MoonPay's terms bar spiders and automatic devices that copy its websites.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the other rows read from MoonPay's and Ramp's sites, after their off-ramp rows were held for the same terms.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in on-ramps. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against the published rankings before this change; no score moves. MoonPay (#3, 70) leaves, with Ramp Network (#4, 70; CC-2026-0141). Transak stays first and Coinify second. Banxa moves #5 68 → #3 68, Coinbase Onramp #6 60 → #4 60, Mercuryo #7 57 → #5 57, Topper (Uphold) #8 54 → #6 54, Stripe Crypto Onramp #9 54 → #7 54, Onramp.money #10 48 → #8 48, Alchemy Pay #11 41 → #9 41, Koywe #12 41 → #10 41, Onmeta #13 41 → #11 41 and Fonbnk #14 41 → #12 41. MoonPay and Ramp Network leave the on-ramp lists of all 27 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam), and every row below them moves up; in the United Arab Emirates Banxa moves to first, where MoonPay was.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-onramp",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/onramp.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-11-10-onramp.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0141",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections#CC-2026-0141",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "onramp"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Ramp Network"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Ramp Network was ranked fourth in on-ramps on its fee and verification help pages, its terms and its licence page, read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. Ramp's terms of service, which count its website among its services, say users won't \"reverse engineer, copy, modify, data scrape, automate or re-sell any part of the Services\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Ramp Network leaves the on-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Ramp's terms bar data scraping and automating any part of its services.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the other rows read from MoonPay's and Ramp's sites, after their off-ramp rows were held for the same terms.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0142: Ramp Network (#4, 70) leaves on-ramps and its list in each of the 27 countries, with MoonPay.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-onramp",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/onramp.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0140",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0140",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "ether.fi Cash"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "ether.fi Cash was ranked first in crypto cards on its card agreement, its terms and its help-centre fee and country pages, each read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. ether.fi's terms of use say \"you must not use any robots, spiders, crawlers, scrapers, or other automated tools or interfaces that are not provided by us to access the Website and extract data\", and those pages are part of its website, so a read made that way cannot date the row. No read of it was made by a person.",
      "whatWeFixed": "ether.fi Cash leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: ether.fi's terms bar robots, crawlers and scrapers on its website.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every ranked row against the terms of the sites it was read from, under the rule that a site whose terms bar automated reading is read only by a person.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. ether.fi Cash, first at 79, leaves with MetaMask Card (CC-2026-0138), Nexo Card (CC-2026-0139) and Coinbase Card (CC-2026-0145). We could read four of the nine crypto cards in full, and a ranking needs five, so crypto cards are not ranked right now (CC-2026-0151); Bleap Card, Crypto.com Card, Plutus Card and Zeal are listed without an order.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/cryptoCard.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/cryptoCardPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0139",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0139",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Nexo Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Nexo Card was ranked fourth in crypto cards on its card page, card terms and status record, each read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. Nexo's platform terms bar causing or launching \"any programs or scripts for the purpose of scraping, indexing, surveying, or otherwise data mining any portion of any of our programs, systems, or products\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Nexo Card leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Nexo's terms bar programs or scripts that scrape or data-mine its products.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every ranked row against the terms of the sites it was read from, under the rule that a site whose terms bar automated reading is read only by a person.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, with ether.fi Cash and MetaMask Card in the same review: see CC-2026-0140.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/cryptoCard.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0138",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0138",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MetaMask Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "MetaMask Card was ranked third in crypto cards, and would have been second once ether.fi Cash left, on its card page and its card help pages, each read by our research agent on 10 November 2026. MetaMask's terms of use, which govern its websites, bar users from any attempt to \"use scraping techniques to mine or otherwise scrape data except as permitted by a Plan\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "MetaMask Card leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: MetaMask's terms bar scraping data from its sites unless a plan permits it.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A second review of the rows next in line for a first place, against each row's own terms, before the new order was published.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0140.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/cryptoCard.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0137",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0137",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "offramps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kraken"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Kraken was ranked first in off-ramps on its fee schedule and its support pages on cash withdrawals and licensing, read by our research agent in October 2026. Kraken's general terms bar \"any web scraping, web harvesting, or data extraction methods\" and \"any bots, robots, parsers, spiders, scripts\" on its sites, so a read made that way cannot date the row. No read of it was made by a person.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Kraken leaves the off-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Kraken's terms bar bots, scripts and scraping on its pages.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every ranked row against the terms of the sites it was read from, under the rule that a site whose terms bar automated reading is read only by a person.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Kraken, first at 82, leaves with Ramp Network (CC-2026-0136), MoonPay (CC-2026-0135) and Coinbase (CC-2026-0146). We could read three of the seven off-ramps in full, and a ranking needs five, so off-ramps are not ranked right now (CC-2026-0152); Banxa, Bitpanda and Transak are listed without an order.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-offramps",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/offramps.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0136",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0136",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "offramps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Ramp Network"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Ramp Network was ranked second in off-ramps, and would have been first once Kraken left, on its fee and payout help pages and its licence page, read by our research agent in October 2026. Ramp's terms of service, which count its website among its services, say users won't \"reverse engineer, copy, modify, data scrape, automate or re-sell any part of the Services\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Ramp Network leaves the off-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: Ramp's terms bar data scraping and automating any part of its services.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A second review of the row next in line for first place, against its own terms, before the new order was published.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0137: off-ramps are not ranked right now.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-offramps",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/offramps.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0135",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0135",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "offramps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MoonPay"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "MoonPay was ranked sixth in off-ramps on its pricing disclosure, licences page and help pages, read by our research agent in October 2026. MoonPay's terms of use say \"you will not use an anonymizing proxy, or any other automatic devices, spider or manual processes to copy or monitor our websites without our prior written permission\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "MoonPay leaves the off-ramp ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: MoonPay's terms bar spiders and automatic devices that copy its websites.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A second review of the off-ramp rows against their own terms, before the new order was published.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, see CC-2026-0137: off-ramps are not ranked right now.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-offramps",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/offramps.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0134",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0134",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "transaction_simulation"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MetaMask Transaction Shield"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "MetaMask Transaction Shield was ranked first in transaction simulation on its product page, its help article and a MetaMask news post, read by our research agent on 22 October 2026. MetaMask's terms of use, which govern its websites, bar users from any attempt to \"use scraping techniques to mine or otherwise scrape data except as permitted by a Plan\", so a read made that way cannot date the row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "MetaMask Transaction Shield leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, its terms bar automated reads: MetaMask's terms bar scraping data from its sites unless a plan permits it.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns when a person reads its pages in a browser.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the other rows read from MetaMask's sites, after MetaMask Card was held for the same terms.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. MetaMask Transaction Shield, first at 81, leaves; the rows next in line were held in the same review (CC-2026-0144), so no new first place was published and transaction simulation is not ranked right now (CC-2026-0150).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-transaction-simulation",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/transactionSimulation.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/transactionSimulationPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0133",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0133",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Crypto.com Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Crypto.com Card was scored 7 of 10 on whose licence issues the card. Our scale gives 5-6 where the card agreement names the issuer but its register entry could not be reached and is recorded as unverified, and the Malta Financial Services Authority's register refused our request on 10 November 2026, so 7 sat above what the evidence shows.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Crypto.com Card's licence score will be 6 when crypto cards are ranked again, on the same evidence read on 10 November 2026: its card page and agreement name Foris MT Limited (C 90348) and its Visa Principal Member licence, and the register entry is recorded as unverified.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A second review of the card next in line for first place, read against the published scale.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order: crypto cards are not ranked right now (CC-2026-0151), so no score is shown; the licence score of 6 applies when they are ranked again.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-robots1-crypto-cards",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-11-10-crypto_card.json",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/cryptoCard.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0132",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0132",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "lightning_wallets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Misty Breez"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Misty Breez was ranked as an operating Lightning wallet, with a link to a code repository that no longer exists, although its operator says on-chain and Lightning payments cannot be made in the app.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Misty Breez carries a sunset date: it is kept so holders can find the exit, with its criteria block at zero, it opens with a dated line that it no longer makes payments, per its operator, as of November 2026, and no page draws a Visit for it.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of Lightning wallets, verified the same day against the operator's page and GitHub.",
      "publishedOrder": "Misty Breez stays last of thirteen Lightning wallets and its score falls from 44 to 41; no other place or score changed. Misty Breez is removed from the Lightning wallet list on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, which list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-lightning-wallets-misty-breez-stopped",
        "file:scripts/check-no-dead-outbound-links.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0131",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0131",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "creator_mint_platforms"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Fair.xyz"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Fair.xyz was ranked sixth of nine creator mint platforms as a live deployer, with a link to its documentation, more than seven months after it closed on 27 March 2026.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Fair.xyz carries a sunset date of 27 March 2026: it is kept for reference with its criteria block at zero, it opens with a dated line that it closed on 27 March 2026, and no page draws a Visit for it.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of creator mint platforms, verified the same day against Fair.xyz's own sunset notice.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Fair.xyz falls from sixth at 62 to ninth at 41, and thirdweb Contracts, Highlight and OpenSea Studio each move up one place, their scores unchanged; Art Blocks Engine stays first. Fair.xyz is removed from the creator mint platform list on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, which list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-creator-mint-fair-xyz-sunset",
        "file:scripts/check-no-dead-outbound-links.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0130",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0130",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_backed_loans"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Figure"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Figure's record said the lender's own rights to reuse a borrower's collateral were unstated. Figure's own 2025 annual report states them: the collateral is in the company's control and it has the ability to rehypothecate, stake, lend or otherwise use it, though it does not have a practice of doing so, while its product page promises the collateral will never be rehypothecated.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Figure's tagline, description and first watch-out now quote the annual report, and a warning dated 11 November 2026 opens its watch-outs: the no-rehypothecation promise is a stated practice, not a prohibition.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of crypto-backed loans, verified the same day against Figure's annual report on sec.gov.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-crypto-backed-loans-figure-reuse",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/cryptoBackedLoansPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0129",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0129",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "automation_keepers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Chainlink Automation's record did not open with the fact a buyer most needs: no upkeep has run on its Ethereum registry since 5 August 2026, its newer registries show only cancellations, and its successor needs Chainlink's approval to use.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Its record now opens its watch-outs with that warning, worded from chain reads of 11 November 2026.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of automation and keeper networks, re-verified the same day on Ethereum.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-automation-chainlink-registry-idle",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/automationKeepersPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0128",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0128",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "sidechains"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Chiliz Chain"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Chiliz Chain's record said nothing of its Ethereum bridge escrow, which its bridge admins withdrew in full on 29 October 2026 and which held about 3% of that amount when read on 11 November 2026.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Chiliz Chain's record now opens its watch-outs with a warning that its bridge admins withdrew the whole Ethereum bridge escrow on 29 October 2026, that it now holds about 3% of that, and that a large exit to Ethereum may not be payable.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of sidechains, verified the same day on Ethereum.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-sidechains-chiliz-bridge-escrow",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/sidechainsPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0127",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0127",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "lightning_payment_infrastructure"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "LNbits"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "LNbits' record carried no warning after LNbits said on 10 November 2026 that versions before 1.7.0 put funds at risk of theft.",
      "whatWeFixed": "LNbits' record now opens its watch-outs with a warning dated 11 November 2026: LNbits says versions before 1.7.0 put funds at risk, so update before use.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of Lightning payment infrastructure, verified the same day against LNbits' own post and release.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-lightning-lnbits-security-update",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/lightningPaymentInfrastructurePool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0126",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0126",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "liquid_staking"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Stride"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Stride was ranked seventh of eleven liquid staking protocols at 65 as an operating protocol, with a link to stride.zone and a 10% reward commission, a month after its v35 upgrade froze liquid staking and began winding down the Stride chain on 12 October 2026.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Stride carries a sunset date of 12 October 2026: it is kept for reference with its criteria block at zero and no price, it opens with a dated warning that liquid staking is frozen, that the chain is winding down, that nobody should deposit and that funds follow Stride's announced process, and no page draws a Visit for it.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of liquid staking, verified the same day against Stride's own release notes and a public Stride API.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Stride falls from seventh at 65 to eleventh at 41, and Frax Ether, Binance wBETH, Stader and Swell each move up one place, their scores unchanged; Jito stays first. Stride is removed from the liquid staking list on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, where it was seventh; those lists list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-liquid-staking-stride-shut-down",
        "file:scripts/check-dead-providers-unpriced.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0125",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0125",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "appchains_l3s"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Abstract"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Abstract was ranked first of nine app-chains and L3s with no word that it is shutting down, although its own terms, updated on 6 October 2026, say it is being wound down and its migration page gives users until 15 December 2026 to move their assets off it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Abstract's record now opens its watch-outs with a warning dated 11 November 2026: it shuts down on 15 December 2026, assets should be moved off before then, and its terms say assets left behind cannot be moved and no recovery is promised.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of app-chains and L3s, verified the same day against Abstract's own terms and migration page.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or place changed; Abstract stays first of nine.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-appchains-abstract-wind-down",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/appchainsL3sPool.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0124",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0124",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "l2_chains"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Blast"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Blast was ranked thirteenth of fifteen layer-2 chains at 47 as an operating chain, with a link to blast.io, after its Ethereum portal was paused on 3 November 2026 and its last state root was posted on 6 November 2026; its RPC and documentation hosts no longer resolve and blast.io now serves a fund-recovery page.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Blast carries a sunset date of 3 November 2026: it is kept for reference with its criteria block at zero so holders can find the recovery route, it opens with a dated warning that the chain is paused, that withdrawals go through Blast's fund-recovery process and that nobody should bridge in, and no page links to blast.io.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November re-read of layer-2 chains, independently verified the same day on Ethereum and in DNS.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Blast falls from thirteenth at 47 to fourteenth at 41 and Manta Pacific moves from fourteenth to thirteenth, its score unchanged; no other place or score changed and Arbitrum One stays first. Blast is removed from the layer-2 chain list on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, which list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-11-l2-chains-blast-shut-down",
        "file:scripts/check-no-dead-outbound-links.ts",
        "file:tests/harm-3-shutdowns.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0121",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0121",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "cross_chain_swaps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Across",
        "Relay",
        "Squid",
        "deBridge",
        "LI.FI / Jumper"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "On 10 November 2026 at 2:05 p.m. ET (19:05 UTC) Across posted on its own X account that users should not visit its app, connect wallets or sign transactions while it investigates a possible security incident affecting its domain (as reported by Cointelegraph and The Defiant the same day). By 22:05 UTC across.to, app.across.to and docs.across.to no longer resolved. Cross-chain swaps still ranked Across second (score 78), with a link to across.to on its row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "From 00:48 UTC on 11 November 2026 (an emergency step) the rows stayed ranked with a dated warning and no link to across.to; this correction takes them out of the ranking. Across leaves the ranking as a pending re-read. It is listed under \"Not confirmed\" with the line \"Re-read pending: Across says across.to was taken over through its registrar on 10 November 2026; its post-mortem is not out yet\". No page links to across.to or its subdomains while it is held: they are listed in data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json, which the build checks every outbound link against, and its review and two comparison guides are withdrawn. It returns, re-scored, once Across publishes its post-mortem on its own site (root cause, hijack window, contracts unaffected), the domain stays clean for 7 days after it, and the row is read live on its own pages. That leaves four cross-chain swap products, each read in full on 3 November 2026, and a ranking here needs five, so the category is not ranked right now: its page lists deBridge, LI.FI / Jumper, Relay and Squid listed alphabetically, with no rank, no first place and no scores, and says what left and why.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reports of Across’s warning on 10 November 2026 (Cointelegraph, The Defiant), checked the same evening against the domain itself: across.to did not resolve to an address and app.across.to and docs.across.to answered NXDOMAIN.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Cross-chain swaps publishes no order while it is not ranked; until 11 November 2026 it had Relay first (80), Across second (78), Squid third (68), deBridge fourth (65) and LI.FI / Jumper fifth (65). In the 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) Relay leaves first place and Across second, and each list shows nothing while the category is not ranked.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-across-reread-pending",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0120",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0120",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "intents"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Across Protocol",
        "NEAR Intents",
        "deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)",
        "Relay Protocol",
        "1inch Fusion"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "On 10 November 2026 at 2:05 p.m. ET (19:05 UTC) Across posted on its own X account that users should not visit its app, connect wallets or sign transactions while it investigates a possible security incident affecting its domain (as reported by Cointelegraph and The Defiant the same day). By 22:05 UTC across.to, app.across.to and docs.across.to no longer resolved. Intents still ranked Across Protocol third (score 67), with a link to across.to on its row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "From 00:48 UTC on 11 November 2026 (an emergency step) the rows stayed ranked with a dated warning and no link to across.to; this correction takes them out of the ranking. Across Protocol leaves the intents ranking as a pending re-read. It is listed under \"Not confirmed\" with the line \"Re-read pending: Across says across.to was taken over through its registrar on 10 November 2026; its post-mortem is not out yet\". No page links to across.to or its subdomains while it is held: they are listed in data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json, which the build checks every outbound link against, and its review and two comparison guides are withdrawn. It returns, re-scored, once Across publishes its post-mortem on its own site (root cause, hijack window, contracts unaffected), the domain stays clean for 7 days after it, and the row is read live on its own pages.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reports of Across’s warning on 10 November 2026 (Cointelegraph, The Defiant), checked the same evening against the domain itself: across.to did not resolve to an address and app.across.to and docs.across.to answered NXDOMAIN.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in intents every row below Across Protocol moves up one place: NEAR Intents #4 to #3; deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) #5 to #4; Relay Protocol #6 to #5; 1inch Fusion #7 to #6. CoW Protocol stays first and UniswapX second; no score changes. In all 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) Across Protocol leaves third place and NEAR Intents takes it, with every row below it up one; CoW Protocol stays first and UniswapX second in each.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-across-reread-pending",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0119",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0119",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Across",
        "Jumper Exchange",
        "Squid Router",
        "Bungee",
        "Base Bridge",
        "Orbiter Finance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "On 10 November 2026 at 2:05 p.m. ET (19:05 UTC) Across posted on its own X account that users should not visit its app, connect wallets or sign transactions while it investigates a possible security incident affecting its domain (as reported by Cointelegraph and The Defiant the same day). By 22:05 UTC across.to, app.across.to and docs.across.to no longer resolved. Bridges still ranked Across second (score 79), with a link to across.to on its row and on its review page, and sixteen other bridge rows and five reviews suggested choosing Across instead.",
      "whatWeFixed": "From 00:48 UTC on 11 November 2026 (an emergency step) the rows stayed ranked with a dated warning and no link to across.to; this correction takes them out of the ranking. Across leaves the bridges ranking as a pending re-read. It is listed under \"Not confirmed\" with the line \"Re-read pending: Across says across.to was taken over through its registrar on 10 November 2026; its post-mortem is not out yet\". No page links to across.to or its subdomains while it is held: they are listed in data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json, which the build checks every outbound link against, and its review and two comparison guides are withdrawn. It returns, re-scored, once Across publishes its post-mortem on its own site (root cause, hijack window, contracts unaffected), the domain stays clean for 7 days after it, and the row is read live on its own pages. The rows and reviews that suggested Across as an alternative now name only the other products they already named, or no product.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reports of Across’s warning on 10 November 2026 (Cointelegraph, The Defiant), checked the same evening against the domain itself: across.to did not resolve to an address and app.across.to and docs.across.to answered NXDOMAIN.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in bridges every row below Across moves up one place: Jumper Exchange #3 to #2; Squid Router #4 to #3; Bungee #5 to #4; Base Bridge #6 to #5; Orbiter Finance #7 to #6; Arbitrum Bridge #8 to #7; Optimism Gateway #9 to #8; Scroll Bridge #10 to #9; Synapse #11 to #10; Stargate #12 to #11; zkSync Bridge #13 to #12; Wormhole #14 to #13; deBridge #15 to #14; Symbiosis #16 to #15; Everclear (formerly Connext) #17 to #16; Hop Protocol #18 to #17. Relay stays first; no score changes. In all 27 country lists (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam) Across leaves second place and Jumper Exchange takes it, with every row below it up one; Relay stays first in each.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-across-reread-pending",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:data/outbound-blocked-hosts.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0123",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0123",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "p2p_exchanges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "NoOnes"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "NoOnes' record listed no restricted market, so readers in Germany and 14 other countries we cover were told that no restriction naming their country was found and were given a link to the provider. NoOnes' own list of blocked jurisdictions, which its terms point to, blocks the United States and the United Arab Emirates and, effective 1 July 2026, serves no resident of the 27 EU states, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. In September that list answered only as an empty script shell and we kept the field blank and said so; on 10 November 2026 it answered in full.",
      "whatWeFixed": "NoOnes' record names the 15 countries we cover that it does not serve and quotes its list with its date, and its page reads \"Restricted in\" those countries with no provider link. The remaining EU states and the US territories on the list are quoted in the record's availability note.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence re-read of P2P exchanges, independently verified the same evening against the provider's terms and help centre.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or worldwide place changed; NoOnes stays seventh of 8. NoOnes leaves the P2P exchange lists for Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden (where it was sixth), the United Arab Emirates (seventh) and the United States (fourth); in each of those 15 lists OKX P2P moves up one place, and every other row keeps its order apart from Peach Bitcoin's move from third to fifth (CC-2026-0122).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-p2p-exchanges-harm",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/p2pExchangesPool.ts",
        "file:src/lib/providerCountryFilter.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0122",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0121-0140#CC-2026-0122",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-11",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "p2p_exchanges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Peach Bitcoin"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Peach Bitcoin was ranked third of 8 P2P exchanges on a 2-of-2 multisig escrow in which Peach held one key, scored 7/10 on who can move the coins while the trade is open and 7/10 on what the platform promises when a trade goes wrong. On 31 August 2026 Peach paused that escrow while a Swiss regulatory review runs; its homepage now states that the seller fully controls the escrowed bitcoin, and its founder's post says Peach no longer holds a signature in the escrow. Our page kept the old description and scores for ten weeks.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Peach's escrow control is scored 3/10 and its dispute standard 4/10, from Peach's own homepage notice and its founder's post of 31 August 2026, read on 10 November 2026; the description, strengths and watch-outs say that the seller alone controls the coins, that only sellers with a long record may sell, and that the 2% fee still applies. The terms, last updated 1 July 2026, still describe the 2-of-2 escrow. The rest of Peach's record keeps its 24 September 2026 read.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence re-read of P2P exchanges, independently verified the same evening against the provider's pages.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in P2P exchanges: Peach Bitcoin falls from third (63) to fifth (52); RoboSats moves from fourth to third (62) and LocalCoinSwap from fifth to fourth (53), their scores unchanged. Hodl Hodl stays first and Bisq second. Peach moves the same way, from third to fifth behind RoboSats and LocalCoinSwap, in all 24 country lists that carry it.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-p2p-exchanges-harm",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/p2pExchanges.ts",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/p2pExchangesPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0118",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0118",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Nexo Card",
        "MetaMask Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Nexo Card was scored 9 of 10 on how long the card programme is likely to last. The 9-10 band also asks that no partner change has interrupted the card in 24 months, and Nexo's own status record, read on 10 November 2026, begins on 13 October 2025, so 24 months cannot be shown.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Nexo Card's programme survival is scored 8 from its card page, its card terms (which name DiPocket as issuer) and its status record, as read on 10 November 2026; its total falls from 69 to 68.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence re-read of crypto cards, with a second reader on every change to a card that was in the top three.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in crypto cards: MetaMask Card moves from fourth to third (69, unchanged) and Nexo Card from third to fourth. ether.fi Cash stays first and Crypto.com Card second. In 15 European country lists (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) MetaMask Card replaces Nexo Card in third place.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-e-reread",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/cryptoCardPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0117",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0117",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "staking"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Chorus One",
        "Figment"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Chorus One was ranked third in staking on evidence read on 28 September 2026 from chorus.one. Its own site now says \"Chorus One is now a part of Bitwise\", and its validators run under the name Bitwise Onchain Solutions, so its staking offer has to be read on the new operator's own pages, and that read has not been made yet.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Chorus One leaves the ranking and is listed under \"Not confirmed\": \"Re-read pending, new operator: Chorus One is now part of Bitwise, and its staking offer is being re-read on Bitwise's own pages.\" Its earlier scores are not shown. It returns to the ranking when that read is made.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence re-read of staking, with an independent review of the exit that read no page on chorus.one, whose terms do not allow automated reading.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in staking: Figment moves from fourth to third, Everstake from fifth to fourth, Twinstake from sixth to fifth and Blockdaemon from seventh to sixth. Kiln stays first and Luganodes second. In 27 country lists Figment takes the third place Chorus One held.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-e-reread",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/staking.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0116",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0116",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card",
        "onramp",
        "staking"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Crypto cards, on-ramps and staking were due for their 45-day re-read by 12 November 2026; every row had last been read on 28 September 2026. Some scores, prices and availability statements no longer matched the providers' own pages: Coinify's site shows \"Coinify Services are Temporarily unavailable\" on every page; Zeal's card programme is closing; ether.fi's ATM limits and fee pages changed; Topper's own help centre says its service is paused in the European Economic Area since 1 July 2026; and Chorus One is now part of Bitwise.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The rows of the three categories were re-read against the providers' own pages on 10 November 2026, under our named research agent or by hand in a signed-out browser, and each quote was matched against the page as read. A row is dated only when every item in it was read that day. All 28 rows these categories rank are dated 10 November 2026. Four rows that could not be read leave their tables under \"Not confirmed\", with their earlier scores not shown: RedotPay Card (its card page and terms show a block page, and its fee table is an image), Unlimit Crypto (its pricing page now forwards to the Stable.com home page, which shows no prices), Kotani Pay (its developer documentation does not load) and Chorus One (now part of Bitwise; see CC-2026-0117).",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push E), with a second reader refuting each score, an independent second reader on every \"none published\" finding, reviews of every change near a first place, and by-hand reads where a page answered only to a browser.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against origin/main (df6baed55). 7 published scores moved in 3 categories: Nexo Card 69 to 68, Bleap Card 59 to 60, Zeal 49 to 43 (its programme is closing), Coinify 75 to 74 (operating status unclear), Onramp.money 51 to 48, Alchemy Pay 42 to 41 and Everstake 67 to 69. No first place changed, worldwide or in any country list. The top three changed in crypto cards (MetaMask Card third, Nexo Card fourth; CC-2026-0118) and in staking (Figment third; CC-2026-0117); in seven country lists (Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam) RedotPay Card leaves the crypto card list, where it was third. Lower in the lists, as rows leave: Coinbase Card moves from seventh to sixth and Plutus Card from ninth to eighth in crypto cards; in on-ramps Alchemy Pay moves from twelfth to eleventh, Koywe from thirteenth to twelfth, Onmeta from fourteenth to thirteenth and Fonbnk from fifteenth to fourteenth. In country lists, from the providers' own availability pages as read on 10 November 2026: MetaMask Card enters the United Kingdom crypto card list in third place; Topper enters the on-ramp lists for Japan (sixth), Indonesia (seventh) and South Korea (seventh); Coinbase Onramp leaves the Japan list, where it was fifth; and Alchemy Pay leaves the United Kingdom list, where it was tenth.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-e-reread",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0115",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0115",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "p2p_exchanges",
        "otc_desks",
        "launchpads",
        "liquid_staking"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Binance P2P",
        "Binance OTC & Execution Services",
        "Binance Launchpool",
        "Binance Staked ETH (WBETH)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Every country page for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway asked whether Coinbase, Kraken and Binance are available there and answered that \"most major platforms have completed MiCA licensing for the EU\". That was true of Coinbase and Kraken, not of Binance: no Binance entity is on ESMA’s MiCA register, and every transitional period in the EU and EEA had ended by 1 July 2026. The AMF’s list of struck-off providers shows Binance France SAS removed on 2 July 2026, for \"Caducité automatique du fait de la fin de période transitoire MiCA\" (it lapsed automatically when the MiCA transitional period ended). Binance P2P, Binance OTC, Binance Launchpool and Binance Staked ETH (WBETH) were also listed in those countries’ rankings, because their records said they serve Europe or the world and named none of these countries as restricted. The links to Binance were already withheld from readers in the EEA.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The answer now names only the platforms that ESMA’s register shows as authorised, read from the same register record the licence lines on our provider pages use: Coinbase and Kraken hold MiCA authorisation; Binance does not, and no transitional period has covered it there since 1 July 2026. When the register record changes, the answer changes with it. The four Binance rows are restricted in the thirteen countries, with a note dated 10 November 2026 that quotes the AMF and says ESMA’s register lists no Binance entity. Their scores do not change, and they stay listed for readers outside the EU and EEA.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A re-read in the November cadence round (CR-NOV push E) found Binance France struck off the AMF’s list; an independent check of ESMA’s register, the AMF and national registers on 10 November 2026 confirmed that Binance holds no MiCA authorisation in any of these countries.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in 51 country lists, measured on data/country-orders.json. Binance P2P leaves the peer-to-peer exchange lists for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway, where it was #6 of 8. Binance OTC & Execution Services leaves the OTC desk lists for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway, where it was #3 of 8 (in the Netherlands it was already restricted). Binance Launchpool leaves the launchpad lists for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway, where it was #5 of 9. Binance Staked ETH (WBETH) leaves the liquid staking lists for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway, where it was #9 of 11. No #1 changes, no score changes, and the worldwide order does not change.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-binance-eu-eea-mica",
        "file:src/lib/countryAvailabilityFaq.ts",
        "file:tests/country-availability-faq.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0114",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0114",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Every correction in the Atom feed (/api/feed.xml) linked the top of the corrections log, with no anchor to the entry. From 5 November 2026 the earlier entries were printed on the archive page, so their items pointed at a page that did not print them (59 of the 111 on 10 November). The correction log as data (/data/corrections.json) gave no address for any entry, and an old address of an entry (the log or the archive with the entry's anchor) opened the top of a page instead of the entry.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each feed item links to the page that prints the entry, with its anchor, and each entry in /data/corrections.json carries that address as url. The earlier corrections are filed on closed archive pages of 20 numbers each, which never change; a corrections page asked for an entry it does not print sends the reader to the page that does, and the archive index lists every archived entry under its old anchor, so those links land without JavaScript.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An internal review of the corrections pages (2026-11-10) followed the feed's links and found every one at the top of the log.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/trust/correctionsPages.ts",
        "file:tests/corrections-archive.test.ts",
        "file:tests/feed-names-what-it-carries.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0113",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0113",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy",
        "savings_plans"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Relai",
        "Trade Republic",
        "Scalable Capital"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The licence line said Relai's MiCA authorisation was passported to the EEA, while ESMA's register lists the 26 other EU member states and none of Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. It said Trade Republic and Scalable Capital were authorised by BaFin, while the register lists both credit institutions under an Article 60 notification, not an Article 63 authorisation; Scalable Capital's entry is for Germany alone, not the EU and EEA.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Relai's line names the 26 EU member states the register passports it to. Trade Republic's and Scalable Capital's lines say they provide crypto-asset services under a MiCA Article 60 notification to BaFin, with the register date; Scalable Capital's names Germany alone.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An independent review of a branch (2026-11-10), checked against ESMA's register (CASPS.csv, read 2026-11-10, legal basis column).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/micaLicenseRegistry.ts",
        "file:tests/licence-basis.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0112",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0112",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "sentiment_analytics"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "cookie.fun (Cookie DAO)",
        "Kaito Pro",
        "Augmento"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "cookie.fun’s row could not be re-read on time. Its address, its pricing page and its terms address now redirect to pro.cookie.fun, which presents Cookie Pro, an AI research app with a paid plan; the pricing page the row was read from no longer exists. Its price stayed at its 7 August 2026 read, past our 45-day promise, and we could not establish that the product the row described is still offered as described.",
      "whatWeFixed": "cookie.fun leaves the sentiment analytics ranking and is listed as not confirmed, with that reason. It is not a judgement on Cookie; it returns, re-scored, after its pages are read again by hand, or is retired if the product is no longer offered. Its date is not changed. Cookie’s terms, read on 10 November 2026, list 29 restricted jurisdictions, among them the United States, China, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam; the entry’s reason says so.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push D): a by-hand read of its pricing address landed on a different product.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in sentiment analytics: cookie.fun (Cookie DAO) (#6 of 8, score 58) leaves the ranking; Kaito Pro moves from #7 to #6 and Augmento from #8 to #7, their scores unchanged. No score, no #1 and no top-five place changes. cookie.fun also leaves each of the 27 country lists for sentiment analytics, where it was #6 of 8; every other row keeps its order there.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cookie-fun-reread-pending",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:src/lib/methodologySpecs/exclusions/sentimentAnalytics.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0111",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0111",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "payment_gateway"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Plisio"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "We listed Plisio as a working payment gateway, sixth of twelve worldwide and fifth for Germany, with a button that read “Start with Plisio”. Plisio’s site has shown only one notice since at least 8 November 2026: \"Our service is currently experiencing a security incident caused by a hacker attack. Restoration work is underway. For security reasons, the processing of incoming and outgoing payments has been temporarily suspended.\" Our page did not say so until 10 November.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Plisio’s entry now opens with what its site says and the day we read it, its first caution quotes the notice, and its button no longer invites a sign-up. This is not a score for the incident: Plisio has not yet said what was taken or whether merchants are covered. Plisio keeps its place in the list for now. This category’s method has no criterion that reads an outage, and taking the row out of the ranking until its service is back is the next step; it is not done yet.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "We read Plisio’s own site on 10 November 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score and no place changed: Plisio is still shown sixth of twelve worldwide and fifth for Germany, now with the notice.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/providerCatalog.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0110",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0110",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "wallet",
        "seed_backup",
        "screeners",
        "market_data_apis",
        "governance_tools",
        "sentiment_analytics",
        "wrapped_assets",
        "incentive_distribution",
        "relayers",
        "tokenised_commodities",
        "nft_lending",
        "shared_sequencers"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Thirteen categories were due for their 45-day re-read by 10 November 2026; some scores, prices and availability statements no longer matched the providers’ own pages (Binance’s notices of unauthorised withdrawals from 30 October 2026; CoinDCX’s entry fee; BitBox’s shipping line; DEX Screener’s own platform fee; Gemini’s, Aragon’s, Binance’s and Solv’s country lists), and some rows could not be read at all.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The rows of these categories were re-read against the providers’ own pages on 10 November 2026, under our named research agent or by hand in a signed-out browser, and each quote was matched against the page as read. A row is dated only when every item in it was read that day. Of the 91 rows these categories rank, 86 are dated 10 November 2026. Five keep an older date, each because one item could not be read: Dune’s API (27 September 2026), Bybit (29 September), and Zealy, GMGN and Coinkite Seedplate (28 October). cookie.fun, whose price could not be read, left its table the same day (CC-2026-0112). VNX Gold’s reserve report was read from the Internet Archive’s copy of 6 July 2026, because VNX’s own link to it refused every reader on 27 September, 28 October and 10 November 2026; its score for whether the report can be opened falls from 4 to 3. Rows that could not be read left their tables as named, dated exclusions (Mercado Bitcoin, Gelato Relay, Common, Amberdata; Absinthe Labs is retired). NFT lending and shared sequencers are not ranked right now.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push D), with a second reader refuting each score, independent reviews of every change near a first place, and by-hand reads where a page answered only to a browser.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against origin/main (01c0bb23a). 23 published scores moved in 7 categories, each named below with its before and after. No worldwide #1 and no worldwide top-three place changed. In country lists the top three changed in three places: Bybit moves from #2 to #3, behind OKX, in thirteen EEA exchange lists (CC-2026-0105); Aragon leaves #2 in the United States list for governance tools; kBTC leaves #3 in Japan’s list for wrapped assets. 5 rows left their rankings as named exclusions, and NFT lending and shared sequencers are not ranked right now, so their #1s (MetaStreet v2, Taiko) and every row leave the ranking. exchange: Bitstamp #2 79 → #2 80; Binance #4 75 → #4 73; Coinbase #5 69 → #5 68; Luno #6 68 → #7 68; OKX #7 67 → #6 68; Bit2Me #8 64 → #10 63; Bitvavo #10 63 → #8 65; Kraken #11 59 → #13 60; BSDEX #12 59 → #11 61; VALR #13 59 → #12 61; Gemini #14 47 → #14 48; CoinDCX #15 46 → #15 41; Mercado Bitcoin leaves the ranking (it was #16, score 41); Bitso #17 41 → #16 41. governance tools: Colony #6 64 → #7 64; Snapshot #7 58 → #6 65; Common (formerly Commonwealth) leaves the ranking (it was #8, score 41). incentive distribution: Absinthe Labs leaves the ranking (it was #9, score 41). market data apis: Messari API #5 64 → #5 66; Amberdata leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 58); CoinDesk Data API #8 55 → #7 57. nft lending: MetaStreet v2 leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 80); GONDI V3.1 leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 71); BendDAO leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 71); Zharta NFT Lending V2 leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 62); Blend (by Blur) leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 62); JPEG’d leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 41); NFTfi leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 41). relayers: Gelato Relay leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 59). screeners: DEX Screener #2 74 → #2 71. seed backup: SEEDPLATE 24 Words #2 78 → #2 80; Coldbit Steel #3 71 → #3 73; Hodlr Shield — Stealth Titanium Heart 24 #4 66 → #4 67; CRYPTOTAG Zeus #5 64 → #5 65; Keystone Tablet Plus #6 50 → #6 54; The Billfodl #7 44 → #7 45. shared sequencers: Taiko (Taiko Alethia) leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 79); Espresso Network leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 76); Spire (Based Stack / Pylon) leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 64); Rome Protocol leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 64); Radius leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 57); AltLayer SQUAD leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 55). tokenised commodities: VNX Gold (VNXAU) #5 54 → #5 53. wallet: Sparrow Wallet #7 68 → #8 67; Rainbow #8 67 → #7 67. In governance tools, Aragon (OSx + Aragon App) leaves the country landings in the United States. In nft lending, MetaStreet v2 leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. In shared sequencers, Taiko (Taiko Alethia) leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. In wrapped assets, SolvBTC (Solv Protocol) leaves the country landings in Canada, Netherlands, Singapore, United States. In wrapped assets, Kraken Wrapped Bitcoin (kBTC) leaves the country landings in Japan.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-d-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0109",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0109",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "otc_desks"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Binance OTC & Execution Services"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Binance OTC was shown to readers in the Netherlands and Canada. Binance’s own List of Prohibited Countries (\"Updated: 5 January 2026\") bars anyone \"located, incorporated, otherwise established in, or resident of\" Canada or the Netherlands, and the United States, from a Binance account, and the OTC desk settles to one: \"Trades are settled directly to the Binance Spot Account you specify\". The row carried no restriction.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Binance OTC is restricted in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, with the list quoted in its note, as on Binance’s exchange row. The row was read for availability only and is not re-dated.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An independent review of the otc_desks change during the November cadence round (CR-NOV push D).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in two country lists: Binance OTC leaves the lists for the Netherlands and Canada, where it was fourth. No #1 changes, and the worldwide order does not change.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-gemini-uk-eea-availability",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/otcDesksPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0108",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0108",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "block_explorers",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "defi_insurance",
        "kyc_compliance",
        "simple_buy",
        "smart_accounts",
        "smart_contract_audits",
        "yield_aggregators"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Routescan",
        "Solscan",
        "Arkham Intelligence",
        "Xapo Bank",
        "Revolut",
        "Relm Insurance",
        "Evertas",
        "Entrust IDV (formerly Onfido)",
        "Bitpanda",
        "Revolut Crypto",
        "Coinbase (Simple Buy)",
        "Den",
        "Sherlock",
        "Yearn Finance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Fourteen product pages showed our internal working notes in their description: text such as \"LIVE RE-READ … BY HAND 2026-11-04\" where a sentence of evidence belongs. Twelve of them since our update of 4 November 2026 and two since that of 5 November, until 10 November. The cause was ours: when a re-read item carried no sentence written for readers, the page fell back to the model run’s working note.",
      "whatWeFixed": "In the fourteen descriptions each of those notes is replaced by the criterion and its score alone; a sentence of evidence returns when the row is next read. The fallback is removed: a description never prints a working note again, and a re-read whose item has no sentence written for readers is not applied until it has one. A build check refuses the working marks in any published catalog text, with the leaked sentences planted as its negative test. No score, order or date changed.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the November cadence round (CR-NOV push D) found the same defect in one of its own rows before publication and traced it to the earlier pushes.",
      "publishedOrder": "No: no score, rank or date changed. Only the description text of the fourteen rows.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/apply-reread.ts",
        "file:scripts/lib/catalogVoice.ts",
        "file:tests/catalog-voice.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0107",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0107",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "tokenised_equities"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Gemini Tokenized Stocks"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Gemini Tokenized Stocks was shown to readers in twelve EEA countries until 10 November 2026. Gemini’s notice says all customer accounts in the European Economic Area closed on 6 April 2026, and the product’s own page now tells a German visitor: \"Gemini Tokenized Stocks are not available in your region\". Our reads of 19 August and 29 September 2026 quoted the page’s marketing copy and legal documents, which still describe an EU service, and did not find the notice.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The product is no longer shown to readers in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden or Finland, the only lists it was on. Its note prints the notice, the product page’s sentence and the fact that the page’s marketing copy and two legal documents still describe an EU service. The row stays in the data as not available in the EEA since 6 April 2026 by Gemini’s notice; it is not recorded as retired, because its page still exists.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The same read as CC-2026-0106.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in twelve country lists: Gemini Tokenized Stocks leaves the lists for Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, where it was last of seven. No #1 and no top-three place changes, and the worldwide order does not change.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-gemini-uk-eea-availability",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/tokenisedEquitiesPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0106",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0106",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "otc_desks"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Gemini eOTC"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Gemini eOTC was shown to readers in the United Kingdom, Australia and thirteen EEA countries, first in each list, until 10 November 2026. Gemini’s own notice says: \"Effective 6 April 2026, Gemini will close all customer accounts in the United Kingdom, European Economic Area, and Australia.\" Our reads of 6 August and 24 September 2026 followed the OTC page, which is undated and says the desk is available in \"70 jurisdictions including the US…, UK, Ireland and Singapore\", and did not find the notice.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Gemini eOTC is no longer shown to readers in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Finland or Norway. For Australia and the EEA countries other than Ireland, no Gemini sentence says the desk serves them. For the United Kingdom and Ireland the question is unsettled: the OTC page still names them as served through Gemini NuSTAR, LLC, the notice closes all customer accounts there, the notice does not mention eOTC, and we could not establish which holds; the note says so and prints both statements. The row stays in the table for the other countries and is not re-dated. Kraken OTC Desk, first in those lists now, was read again on 10 November 2026.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A banner on Gemini’s fee page, seen during the November cadence round (CR-NOV push D), followed by a by-hand read of the notice and the OTC page.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in fifteen country lists: Gemini eOTC leaves the lists for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, where it was #1. Kraken OTC Desk, #2 until now and read again on 10 November 2026, leads each of them; B2C2 is second. Kraken OTC Desk itself leaves the lists for Japan and Singapore, where it was #2 behind Gemini eOTC: on that read Kraken’s own page lists Japan among the regions it does not serve and says “Kraken is not licensed or regulated in Singapore.”; B2C2 is second in the lists for Japan and Singapore now. The worldwide order does not change.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-gemini-uk-eea-availability",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/otcDesksPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0105",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0105",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "From 3 to 10 November 2026 this site showed Bybit EU’s entry fee as 0.15% maker and 0.2% taker. That was our misreading, not a change by Bybit. Bybit EU’s fee table gives one rate per volume band, the same for maker and taker. On 3 November we took two figures from the page’s embedded configuration (\"sub_level 1: taker 0.002, maker 0.0015\") and from a flattened copy of the table without its rows. 0.15% and 0.2% are the table’s two highest-volume bands (from 500,000 USD, and under 500,000 USD). A Regular User pays 0.25% maker and taker on crypto pairs and on fiat pairs under 100,000 USD of 30-day volume, as our read of 28 October 2026 said.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The EEA rate is 0.25% maker and taker again, read by hand from the table as rendered on 10 November 2026 and confirmed in a second browser read, with the tier table quoted. Every figure computed from it follows, and the order in each EEA country’s exchange list changed as a result: Bybit moves from second to third, behind OKX. A rate rebuilt from table cells now needs a capture of the table as rendered, and a single cell cut from its row fails the build. The entry-tier figures of eight other exchanges’ fee tables (Kraken, Gemini, Luno, VALR, Bitso, Bit2Me, BSDEX and OKX in the United States) were read again as rendered the same day, and each matched; Upbit’s, whose source is a raw file and not a page, was not.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A by-hand read of Bybit EU’s fee page during the November cadence round (CR-NOV push D).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in thirteen country lists; no worldwide place moves, because the worldwide order does not read a regional rate. In Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, Bybit moves from #2 to #3, behind OKX; the first place in each of those lists is Bitstamp, before and after. A German reader’s yearly cost at Bybit, at EUR 1,000 a month, is EUR 30 and not EUR 24; the typical exchange for that reader is Bitvavo, at EUR 30, before and after.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-d-reread",
        "file:scripts/check-regional-pricing.ts",
        "file:tests/pricing-truth-gates.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0104",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0104",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "shared_sequencers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Taiko (Taiko Alethia)",
        "Radius",
        "AltLayer SQUAD"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two of the six shared sequencers we ranked are no longer products on offer, and both stayed in the table until the 10 November re-read. Radius said on 27 August 2026 that it \"evolved from block production and MEV resistance to operating solvers and building execution systems\". AltLayer SQUAD is one line in AltLayer’s documentation overview; its own page is gone, and AltLayer’s product and updates pages do not name it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Radius and AltLayer SQUAD are listed as no longer offered, each with its source and read date. Four products remain where a ranking needs five, so shared sequencers are not ranked right now. The four are listed alphabetically under their own heading, each with the day it was last read in full (three on 10 November 2026, Espresso Network on 28 October 2026), and Taiko keeps its incident line of 21 June 2026. A category may take this state only when every remaining row was read within its promise and each departed row carries dated evidence.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push D).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes: shared sequencers publish no order while fewer than five products remain. Taiko (Taiko Alethia) leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 79), with Espresso Network (#2, 76), Spire (Based Stack / Pylon) (#3, 64), Rome Protocol (#4, 64), Radius (#5, 57) and AltLayer SQUAD (#6, 55). Every country landing for shared sequencers closes with the ranking.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-d-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0103",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0103",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-10",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "nft_lending"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "MetaStreet v2"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "NFT lending measured one of its four scores, the operating record, on DefiLlama, a source paused on 27 October 2026 while we ask for permission to republish it, so the 10 November re-read could not date that score for any venue. The same read found the venue ranked first closing: MetaStreet’s own app reads \"MetaStreet app is winding down. Withdraw your positions below.\" NFTfi (closed 31 August 2026) and JPEG’d (new loans ended 28 December 2024) were already shut, which leaves four operating venues where a ranking needs five.",
      "whatWeFixed": "NFT lending is not ranked right now: its page says why, since when and what restores it, and lists the five venues it holds alphabetically. NFTfi and JPEG’d are listed as retired, each with its date and source.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push D).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes: NFT lending publishes no order while it is not ranked right now. MetaStreet v2 leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 80), with GONDI V3.1 (#2, 71), BendDAO (#3, 71), Zharta NFT Lending V2 (#4, 62) and Blend (by Blur) (#5, 62); NFTfi and JPEG’d, already shut, leave their last places. Every country landing for NFT lending closes with the ranking.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-10-cr-nov-push-d-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0102",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0102",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "privacy_tools",
        "depin_networks"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Railgun",
        "GEODNET"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Privacy tools and DePIN networks each measure one of four scores on a source paused on 27 October 2026 while we ask for permission to republish it (L2BEAT and DefiLlama for the anonymity set; DefiLlama’s fees API for verified demand), so their 3 November re-read could not date that score for any row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The two categories are not ranked right now: their pages say why, since when and what restores them, and list what they compare alphabetically. Every row is listed as not confirmed rather than ranked on a September measure.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push C).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes: privacy tools and DePIN networks publish no order while they are not ranked right now. Their #1s leave the ranking with every row: Railgun leaves the ranking in privacy tools (it was #1, score 80), and GEODNET leaves the ranking in DePIN networks (it was #1, score 80).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-c-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0101",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0101-0120#CC-2026-0101",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "decentralised_compute",
        "depin_networks",
        "kyc_compliance",
        "layer1_chains",
        "privacy_tools",
        "revoke_tools",
        "yield_aggregators"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Seven categories were due for their 45-day re-read by 7 November 2026; some scores and availability statements no longer matched the providers’ own pages (Aptos’s terms do bar sanctioned persons and countries; Beefy’s app blocks one vault group in five countries), and some rows could not be read at all.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against the provider’s own pages and each quote matched against its page capture or by-hand read. Every row of the five ranked categories was read in full; privacy tools and DePIN networks are not ranked right now because each method reads a source we have paused.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push C), with model runs that matched each quote and refuted each score, and by-hand reads in a signed-out browser where a page answered only to one.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against ef381cf1c. 6 published scores moved in 4 categories, each named below with its before and after. Privacy tools and DePIN networks are not ranked right now, so their #1s (Railgun, GEODNET) and every row leave the ranking. decentralised compute: Render Network #7 50 → #7 52. depin networks: GEODNET leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 80); Helium leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 57); Wingbits leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 53); WeatherXM leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 51); DIMO leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 48); XNET Mobile leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 43); Bee Maps (Hivemapper) leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 41). kyc compliance: ComplyCube #3 77 → #3 76. layer1 chains: TON (The Open Network) #2 76 → #3 74; Avalanche #3 75 → #2 75; Cardano #4 73 → #5 71; Solana #5 71 → #4 72. privacy tools: Railgun leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 80); Tornado Cash leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 74); Privacy Pools (0xbow) leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 66); Umbra leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 61); Penumbra leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 59); Zama Confidential Tokens leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 58); Aztec Network leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 54); Fluidkey leaves the ranking (it was #8, score 54). revoke tools: Etherscan Token Approval Checker #3 66 → #3 65. In depin networks, GEODNET leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. In privacy tools, Railgun leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-c-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0100",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0100",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "oracles",
        "nft_marketplace",
        "prediction_markets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Pyth Network",
        "OpenSea",
        "Kalshi"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Oracles, NFT marketplaces and prediction markets each measure one of four scores on DefiLlama, a source paused on 27 October 2026 while we ask for permission to republish it, so their 3 November re-read could not date that score for any row.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The three categories are not ranked right now: their pages say why, since when and what restores them, and list what they compare alphabetically. Every row is listed as not confirmed rather than ranked on a September measure.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push B).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes: oracles, NFT marketplaces and prediction markets publish no order while they are not ranked right now. Their #1s leave the ranking with every row: Pyth Network leaves the ranking in oracles (it was #1, score 83), OpenSea leaves the ranking in NFT marketplaces (it was #1, score 84), and Kalshi leaves the ranking in prediction markets (it was #1, score 83).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-b-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:tests/not-ranked.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0099",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0099",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "block_explorers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Routescan",
        "Blockscout",
        "Etherscan"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two block-explorer scores no longer matched what the providers publish: Routescan’s data-quality score was not grounded in any record of index completeness or lag, and Blockscout’s verification score sat below what its own documentation supports.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Re-read from the providers’ own pages: Routescan’s data quality 8 to 5 (level with Blockscout, the only explorer that publishes index measurements) and its free usability 9 to 8; Blockscout’s contract verification 6 to 8 (level with Etherscan: Foundry and Hardhat, one key, any chain). A skeptic model run upheld all three.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push B) and a refute-by-default skeptic model run on the #1 move.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in block explorers: Blockscout rises from #3 76 to #1 83 and Routescan falls from #1 84 to #2 82. It turns on three re-read scores together: Routescan’s data quality (8 to 5, now level with Blockscout), Routescan’s free usability (9 to 8) and Blockscout’s contract verification (6 to 8, level with Etherscan). The margin is narrow, 0.39 points of the weighted criterion total: Routescan one band higher on data quality or free usability, or Blockscout one band lower on verification, would put Routescan back on top.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-b-reread",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-11-03-block_explorers.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0098",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0098",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "cross_chain_swaps"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Relay",
        "Across"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two cross-chain-swap scores for Across no longer matched what its own pages publish: its fee page documents fewer of the fee lines its live quote returns, and its security record now counts the provider’s full history.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Re-read from the providers’ own pages: Across’s bridge security model 8 to 7 and fee transparency 8 to 7; Relay’s fee transparency 8 to 7. A skeptic model run upheld all three.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push B) and a refute-by-default skeptic model run on the #1 move.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in cross chain swaps: Relay rises from #2 80 to #1 80 and Across falls from #1 80 to #2 78. Across’s bridge security model (8 to 7) decides it; Relay’s own fee-transparency correction narrows its lead but does not change it.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-b-reread",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-11-03-cross_chain_swaps.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0097",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0097",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-05",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "smart_accounts",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "simple_buy",
        "defi_dashboards",
        "cross_chain_swaps",
        "naming_services",
        "smart_contract_audits",
        "bug_bounties",
        "defi_insurance",
        "oracles",
        "block_explorers",
        "indexers",
        "prediction_markets",
        "trading_bots",
        "nft_marketplace",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "tokenised_tbills"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Seventeen categories were due for their 45-day re-read by 6 November 2026; some scores, prices and availability statements no longer matched the providers’ own pages, and some rows could not be read at all.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against the provider’s own pages and each quote matched against its page capture. A row we could not read honestly left the ranking, named with why; oracles, NFT marketplaces and prediction markets are not ranked right now because each method reads a source we have paused.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV push B), with model runs that matched each quote and refuted each score, and by-hand reads in a browser where a page answered only to one.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Measured on rankings.json and data/country-orders.json against 08871a285. Two #1s change on the re-read, each held by a refute-by-default skeptic model run: in cross chain swaps Relay replaces Across, and in block explorers Blockscout replaces Routescan. Oracles, NFT marketplaces and prediction markets are not ranked right now, so their #1s (Pyth Network, OpenSea, Kalshi) and every row leave the ranking. block explorers: Routescan #1 84 → #2 82; Etherscan #2 76 → #3 80; Blockscout #3 76 → #1 83; mempool.space #4 72 → #4 76; Tenderly leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 68); Solscan #6 59 → #5 61; OKLink leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 54); Arkham Intelligence #8 50 → #6 54; Subscan #9 45 → #7 50. bug bounties: HackerOne leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 60); Secure3 leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 52). cross chain swaps: Across #1 80 → #2 78; Relay #2 80 → #1 80; LI.FI / Jumper #3 66 → #5 65; Squid #4 66 → #3 68; Rango Exchange leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 66); deBridge #6 64 → #4 65; Bungee / Socket leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 60). crypto neobanks: Xapo Bank #2 79 → #2 81; Wirex leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 52); N26 #4 51 → #3 52; Bitpanda #5 49 → #4 51; Nexo #6 43 → #5 44; Fold #7 41 → #6 41. defi dashboards: DefiLlama leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 72); Octav #3 66 → #2 65; Zerion #4 59 → #3 59; Portals (Explorer) #5 58 → #4 54; DeBank #6 57 → #5 54; Nansen Portfolio #7 52 → #6 52; CoinStats #8 49 → #7 49. defi insurance: Breach Insurance leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 41). indexers: Envio (HyperIndex) #2 77 → #3 76; Goldsky #3 77 → #2 76; SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) #4 74 → #5 74; Ormi 0xGraph #5 74 → #4 75; SQD (formerly Subsquid) #6 74 → #7 72; Sentio #7 73 → #6 73. naming services: 3DNS leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 63); SNS (Solana Name Service, formerly Bonfida) #4 61 → #3 56; Lens Usernames (formerly Lens Handles) #5 53 → #5 50; SPACE ID #6 52 → #4 52; Unstoppable Domains #7 51 → #6 50. nft marketplace: OpenSea leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 84); UniSat Marketplace leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 69); Fragment leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 62); Tensor leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 61); OKX NFT Marketplace leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 59); SuperRare leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 58); Courtyard leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 55); Magic Eden leaves the ranking (it was #8, score 53); Blur leaves the ranking (it was #9, score 51). oracles: Pyth Network leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 83); DIA leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 71); Api3 leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 68); Chainlink leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 61); RedStone leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 61); Chronicle Protocol leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 59); Switchboard leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 51); Supra leaves the ranking (it was #8, score 49); Stork leaves the ranking (it was #9, score 45). prediction markets: Kalshi leaves the ranking (it was #1, score 83); Polymarket leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 81); Predict.fun leaves the ranking (it was #3, score 69); SX Bet leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 65); Limitless Exchange leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 64); Myriad Markets leaves the ranking (it was #6, score 56); ADI PredictStreet leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 54); Opinion (Opinion Labs) leaves the ranking (it was #8, score 53). simple buy: Bitpanda #7 41 → #8 41; River #8 41 → #7 41. smart accounts: Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) #2 78 → #2 76. smart contract audits: Certora #1 82 → #1 81; Zellic leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 79); Sherlock #3 71 → #2 72; Trail of Bits leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 71); Immunefi leaves the ranking (it was #5, score 70); Cyfrin / CodeHawks #6 66 → #3 67; OpenZeppelin #7 56 → #4 60; Spearbit / Cantina #8 49 → #6 50; CertiK #9 49 → #5 53. stablecoin yield: Ondo USDY #3 67 → #3 65; Coinbase USDC Rewards #6 44 → #7 44; Ethena (sUSDe) #7 43 → #6 44. tokenised tbills: Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund (JTRSY) #4 69 → #5 68; Ondo OUSG #5 69 → #4 69; VanEck VBILL leaves the ranking (it was #7, score 53); Invesco USTB (Superstate) #8 53 → #7 53; Midas mTBILL leaves the ranking (it was #9, score 47). trading bots: Pionex leaves the ranking (it was #2, score 68); Cryptohopper #3 67 → #2 67; Bitsgap leaves the ranking (it was #4, score 63); Hummingbot #5 61 → #4 59; 3Commas #6 58 → #5 58; HaasOnline #7 56 → #6 56; Gunbot #8 56 → #3 67; Coinrule leaves the ranking (it was #9, score 49). In nft marketplace, OpenSea leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. In oracles, Pyth Network leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. In prediction markets, Limitless Exchange leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Australia, France, United Kingdom. In prediction markets, Kalshi leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, United States, Vietnam. In prediction markets, SX Bet leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Belgium, Poland, Singapore, Thailand. In prediction markets, Polymarket leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Canada, Portugal, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates. In prediction markets, Predict.fun leaves the country landings, which close with the ranking, in Ireland, Italy. In tokenised tbills, Ondo OUSG leaves the country landings in South Korea.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-05-cr-nov-push-b-reread",
        "file:src/lib/trust/notRanked.ts",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0096",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0096",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-04",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-04",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "dex"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "SushiSwap",
        "Osmosis",
        "Aerodrome",
        "Maverick Protocol",
        "Balancer",
        "Raydium"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "SushiSwap’s DEX row could not be re-read on time: Sushi’s terms page has been unavailable since 3 November 2026, so its country note stayed at its 13 September read, past our 45-day promise from 5 November.",
      "whatWeFixed": "SushiSwap leaves the DEX ranking and is listed as not confirmed, with that reason. It is not a judgement on SushiSwap; it returns, re-scored, after a live re-read.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round: its re-read found Sushi’s terms page empty.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in DEXs: SushiSwap (#7 of 12, score 48) leaves the ranking; Osmosis, Aerodrome, Maverick Protocol, Balancer and Raydium each move up one place. No score or #1 changes.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-04-sushiswap-reread-pending",
        "file:src/lib/rereadPending.ts",
        "file:tests/reread-pending-exclusion.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0095",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0095",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "dex_aggregator",
        "dex"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Odos",
        "PancakeSwap",
        "OpenOcean"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Odos held a row in the DEX aggregator table after it shut down on 27 July 2026, and two DEX rows could not be dated on their own sources.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Odos leaves the table, named as an exclusion with its shutdown notice. PancakeSwap’s exploit record rests on its own 2021 post; OpenOcean’s missing terms are recorded on dated captures.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes: Odos (#12 of 12, score 41) leaves DEX aggregators; nothing else moves.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-03-cr-nov-dex-follow-up",
        "file:scripts/reread/check-reread.mjs",
        "file:tests/check-reread-none-published.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0094",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0094",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit",
        "Binance Staked ETH (WBETH)",
        "ether.fi Cash"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The job views said \"Serves\" from a provider's own region tags, not a licence (Bybit for UK readers, Binance Staked ETH for German and UK readers), and priced each reader at the base rate: Bybit at 0.10% for a German reader, Trezor and Koinly in dollars.",
      "whatWeFixed": "A custodial row is licensed for an EEA or UK reader only by a register fact covering the country; without one it is listed last, by name, for information. Each row is priced at the serving entity's read rate (Bybit EU: 0.2%), in the reader's currency where published.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 3 November value benchmark, re-checked by a model run told to refute each call.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in the job views only. Germany: Bybit #1 → Gate EU #1 (buy, plan, sell); ether.fi Cash #1 → Bleap Card #1 (cards). UK plan: Bybit #1 → Bitstamp #1. No ranking's #1 moved.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-03-bybit-eu-fiat-pairs",
        "file:tests/job-views.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0093",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0093",
      "correctedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "loggedAt": "2026-11-03",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_payroll",
        "decentralised_storage",
        "mev_protection",
        "offramps",
        "onchain_analytics",
        "onchain_monitoring",
        "rpc_nodes",
        "tokenised_funds",
        "tokenised_realestate",
        "transaction_simulation",
        "cdp_stablecoins",
        "data_availability",
        "decentralised_id",
        "mpc_wallets",
        "wallet_screening",
        "yield_vaults",
        "dex",
        "dex_aggregator",
        "perp_dex"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Nineteen categories were due for their 45-day re-read by 7 November 2026; some scores, prices and availability statements no longer matched the providers’ own pages.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against the provider’s own pages (fourteen categories on 22 October, five on 3 November) and each quote matched against its page or capture. A row with an item that could not be read keeps its last full read.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The November cadence round (CR-NOV), with model runs that matched each quote and refuted each score.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in 16 categories; no #1 changed (a proposed move from Yearn (v3) to Morpho Vaults was refused by a two-lens skeptic model run, and Yearn (v3) stays #1). cdp stablecoins: Sky (formerly MakerDAO) USDS in Hong Kong from #5 to unlisted; Sky (formerly MakerDAO) USDS in the United Kingdom from #5 to unlisted. crypto payroll: Toku 79 to 78. data availability: Celestia 70 to 68; NEAR DA from #7 to #6; 0G DA from #6 to #7. decentralised id: Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) 74 to 72. decentralised storage: Walrus 63 to 62; Arweave from #5 to #4. dex: Trader Joe (LFJ) in the United Kingdom from #4 to unlisted; Maverick Protocol in the United States from #10 to unlisted; Trader Joe (LFJ) in the United States from #4 to unlisted. dex aggregator: DODO from #4 to #5; UniswapX from #5 to #4; Bebop in Canada from #9 to unlisted; Bebop in Singapore from #9 to unlisted; Jupiter in Singapore from #8 to unlisted; 1inch in the United Arab Emirates from #2 to unlisted; Bebop in the United States from #9 to unlisted; DODO in the United States from #4 to unlisted; Jupiter in the United States from #8 to unlisted; LI.FI (Jumper) in the United States from #10 to unlisted; KyberSwap in Vietnam from #6 to unlisted. mpc wallets: Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets) 67 to 65. offramps: Ramp Network 74 to 76. onchain analytics: Arkham 46 to 45; Messari 53 to 58; Glassnode from #5 to #6; Nansen from #4 to #5. onchain monitoring: BlockSec Phalcon 75 to 78. rpc nodes: dRPC 76 to 78; Chainstack from #2 to #3. tokenised funds: ADDX 58 to 56; Blockchain Capital BCAP in the United States from #4 to unlisted. tokenised realestate: Blocksquare 48 to 46; Figure Connect 58 to 48; RedSwan CRE 47 to 48; Reental from #3 to #2. wallet screening: AMLBot 47 to 52; Crystal Intelligence 45 to 62; Elliptic 74 to 78; Global Ledger 49 to 55; Merkle Science from #6 to #7. yield vaults: Beefy 78 to 77; Fluid Lite 78 to 76; Lagoon 65 to 64; Upshift 59 to 58; Yearn (v3) 83 to 82.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-11-03-cr-nov-push-a-reread",
        "file:scripts/check-pool-matches-research.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-review-cadence-is-kept.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0090",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0090",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-29",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-29",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bit2Me",
        "Gate EU",
        "OKX Wallet",
        "Electrum",
        "Sparrow Wallet"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Five rows ranked on 28 October 2026 (Bit2Me and Gate EU in Exchanges; OKX Wallet, Electrum and Sparrow Wallet in Software wallets) showed \"no observation on file\" for every criterion, although each was scored from a re-read holding a quote, source and read date per criterion, and /best/exchange called Bit2Me and Gate EU provisional.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Their evidence cells are published from those re-reads, each held to the page captures committed with it; Bit2Me's and Gate EU's proof of reserves reads \"none found on the pages read\", with the pages named.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The deploy chain's tests on the merged push 3 tree, 29 October 2026 (tests/provisional-scores-marked and the explore desk facts).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score, rank or country order changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-29-new-rows-evidence-published",
        "file:scripts/generate-evidence-cells.mjs"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0089",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0089",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-29",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-29",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Trade Republic",
        "Fidelity Crypto",
        "Uphold"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Simple Buy's evidence page stopped being published when Trade Republic was ranked on 28 October 2026: its four cells were scored but not added to the re-read the page is built from, so every Simple Buy row's provider page lost its quoted evidence.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Trade Republic's cells joined the re-read, each with a quote from its own help centre, price list or press release kept as a page capture; Fidelity Crypto's and Uphold's cells are dated the day they were read, 28 October 2026.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The deploy chain's tests on the merged push 3 tree, 29 October 2026 (tests/evidence-dates-are-reads).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score, rank or country order changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-29-simple-buy-evidence-complete",
        "file:scripts/check-evidence-dates-are-reads.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0092",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0092",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Every Simple Buy row said it had no evidence on file, and Strike’s provider page said “no receipt file yet”, although the 14 September 2026 re-read had read all nine ranked rows on all four criteria, each with a quote and a source page, then checked by a second model run that tried to refute each one (36 cells). The re-read recorded its 27 confirmed cells without the value it confirmed, and the evidence generator publishes only a cell that carries one, so it published no file.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Simple Buy publishes its evidence again, from the 28 October 2026 re-read of every row (2026-10-28-dex-simple-buy-re-read): each cell’s score, quote, source and reading date opens on the provider page and in the score popover. The 14 September re-read’s 27 confirmed cells now also carry the value they confirmed, equal to the strength the catalog already ranks on. Finst and BISON, which joined on 27 October 2026, publish their cells from that day’s read, so all 14 rows open their evidence (56 cells). A build check now fails when the #1 row of a flagship category, Simple Buy included, shows no evidence on file.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An editorial audit of the buy journey on 27 October 2026 compared /best/simple_buy, which read as having no evidence, with /best/onramp, which reads High.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-dex-simple-buy-re-read",
        "data:2026-10-28-finst-bison-evidence-published",
        "file:scripts/lib/flagshipEvidence.ts",
        "file:tests/flagship-evidence.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0088",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0088",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy",
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Trade Republic"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "From 19 August to 28 October 2026 Simple Buy refused Trade Republic for having no way to move coins to a wallet you control, and Exchanges gave the same reason. We relied on Trade Republic's help article, which still says so, while its customer agreement and price list have provided free outgoing transfers to the customer's own wallet, plus network fees, since the November 2025 Crypto Wallet launch.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Trade Republic enters Simple Buy at #4 with 41, scored on its own price list, customer agreement and licence. Bitpanda moves from #4 to #5, River from #5 to #6, Uphold from #6 to #7, Fidelity Crypto from #7 to #8, PayPal Crypto from #8 to #9, Cash App Bitcoin from #9 to #10, Revolut Crypto from #10 to #11 and Robinhood Crypto from #11 to #12, each at 41. The Exchanges refusal now gives its real reason: Trade Republic has no order book.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of every refusal against the provider's binding documents found the price list line and the transfer terms on 28 October 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Trade Republic enters Simple Buy at #4 with 41, and eight rows each move down one place at an unchanged 41. Strike stays #1 (86), and the Exchanges order does not move. Trade Republic is added to the Simple Buy list on the country pages for Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-trade-republic-ranked-simple-buy",
        "file:tests/trade-republic-simple-buy.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0087",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0087",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Fidelity Crypto",
        "Uphold",
        "SoFi Crypto"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Fiat Simple Buy had no row and no refusal for Fidelity Crypto, Uphold or SoFi Crypto, so a US or UK reader looking for them found nothing and no reason why. Uphold appeared only as Topper, its onramp widget.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Fidelity Crypto and Uphold are ranked from their own fee, withdrawal and availability pages, read on 28 October 2026. SoFi Crypto is named as a coverage gap: every SoFi page that states its fee, transfers or states answered with a bot challenge that day, so nothing about it is scored.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A provider-universe audit on 28 October 2026 compared the catalog with the US app-store finance chart and found both missing.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, below the top five. Strike (#1, 86), Coinbase (#2, 64), Relai (#3, 43), Bitpanda (#4, 41) and River (#5, 41) are unchanged. Uphold enters at #6 and Fidelity Crypto at #7, both at 41. PayPal Crypto moves from #6 to #8, Cash App Bitcoin from #7 to #9, Revolut Crypto from #8 to #10 and Robinhood Crypto from #9 to #11, each still at 41. No published score changed. On the United States page for Fiat Simple Buy, Uphold and Fidelity Crypto are newly listed at #4 and #5 behind Strike, Coinbase and River, and PayPal Crypto (#4 to #6), Cash App Bitcoin (#5 to #7) and Robinhood Crypto (#6 to #8) move down; on the United Kingdom page, Uphold is newly listed at #5 and Revolut Crypto moves from #5 to #6. Strike stays #1 on both.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-simple-buy-us-universe",
        "file:scripts/check-pool-matches-research.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0086",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0086",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "perp_dex",
        "dex_aggregator",
        "dex"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Vertex Protocol",
        "Lighter",
        "Paradex",
        "Jupiter Perps",
        "Hyperliquid",
        "dYdX",
        "GMX",
        "Aster"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Vertex Protocol, closed since July 2025, was shown with 40 markets from no source; Lighter’s and Paradex’s notes repeated L2BEAT’s multisig thresholds instead of what their own docs say; the live market counts of six perp venues and Jupiter Perps’ market list were September figures.",
      "whatWeFixed": "All 12 perp_dex and 12 dex_aggregator rows were re-read on 28 October from the providers’ own docs, APIs and chains. Vertex lists 0 markets; Lighter’s and Paradex’s notes state their own docs; the market counts and Jupiter Perps’ nine markets are the 28 October reads. Facts no own page states today keep their September read and are marked unverified.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 28 October cadence re-read of perp_dex and dex_aggregator, page by page from the providers’ own sources.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No score, rank or Find-my-best answer changed in perp_dex, dex_aggregator or dex.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-perp-dex-aggregator-re-read",
        "file:scripts/reread/check-reread-quotes.mjs"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0085",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0085",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "tax_software",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "hardware_wallet",
        "bridges",
        "liquid_staking",
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit",
        "OKX",
        "Koinly",
        "CoinTracking.info",
        "CoinTracking",
        "Trezor",
        "Ledger",
        "Ledger Nano X",
        "deBridge",
        "Hop Protocol",
        "Coinbase Staking",
        "ether.fi Cash"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Readers in the EEA were priced at rates their entity does not charge: Bybit at bybit.com's 0.10% (Bybit EU GmbH charges 0.25%), which put Bybit first on cost for Germany, and OKX at 0.10% (a spot-only account pays 0.20%). Euro prices printed as converted dollars (Koinly's €99 plan as ≈ €88, Trezor Safe 3's EUR 59 as ≈ €53), deBridge was ranked the cheapest bridge on one of its four fees, and Hop Protocol, withdrawn on 23 October, was still sorted second-cheapest.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each figure was read again from the provider's own page on 28 October and is priced per reader, by the entity or store that serves their country; euro prices print in euros; deBridge's fixed fee and taker margin are named, so its figure reads as a floor and is not ranked as a total; Hop Protocol carries no price; Coinbase Staking says the 10% is cbETH's and prints the 35% in-app rate beside it. Three build checks now fail on each of these defects.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The value benchmark of 28 October 2026 checked ten reader jobs against providers' own pages.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Under methodology 2026.10.14 (owner ruling the same day: each reader is scored on the rate of the entity serving their country) the published exchange #1 stays Bybit; OKX falls from #2 to #7, its EU rate applying to EEA readers only. For readers in the EEA and the United States, Bitstamp ranks first. Bridges: deBridge falls from 49 to 46 and keeps #15.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-price-data-truth",
        "methodology:2026.10.13#0",
        "file:scripts/check-billing-currency.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-regional-pricing.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-dead-providers-unpriced.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0084",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0084",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "liquid_staking"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Binance Staked ETH (WBETH)",
        "Kraken",
        "Bybit"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "A reader in the United Kingdom was shown an EU (MiCA) passport as the licence that covers them, which it does not, and Binance Staked ETH (WBETH) was listed as available in the United Kingdom although the FCA register reads \"No longer authorised\" for Binance Markets Limited (FRN 688849).",
      "whatWeFixed": "A UK reader now sees each provider's FCA register record (for Kraken, PAYWARD LTD., FRN 928768, registered since 23 November 2021; for Bybit, not on the register), with a link to the register, and a firm the register says is no longer authorised is not offered to a UK reader.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A value benchmark on 2026-10-28 asked as a UK reader \"is it FCA-registered?\" and \"stake ETH as a UK resident\", and the FCA register was read the same day.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. Every published default order and score is unchanged. Binance Staked ETH (WBETH), #9 of 11, is removed from the liquid staking list for the United Kingdom, which now lists 10; its #1, Jito, is unchanged.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-fca-register-uk",
        "file:tests/eligibility-gate-benchmark.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0083",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0083",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Exodus"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Exodus was scored 4 on “Can I see exactly what I am signing?” for a dApp signing screen in its Web3 Wallet browser extension, which Exodus discontinued on 1 October 2026; its mobile app had already removed WalletConnect and the dApp browser.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Exodus now scores 2 on that criterion, the 0-2 description for a wallet whose own pages describe no screen for signing third-party requests, and its published score moves 73 → 69; its tagline and watchout say it no longer signs dApp requests.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The scheduled 28 October re-read of the wallet category found the extension’s signing page gone and its end-of-support page saying support ended on 1 October 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The wallet order is unchanged: Exodus stays #6 and its score moves 73 → 69.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-wallet-re-read",
        "file:scripts/reread/check-reread-quotes.mjs"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0082",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0082",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "key_recovery",
        "remittances"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bitcoin Keeper (BitHyve)",
        "Unchained",
        "Strike Send Globally"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Bitcoin Keeper (BitHyve) was scored 9 of 10 for recovery without the vendor on help-centre articles that no longer exist: the help centre is gone and the app has passed from BitHyve to a community project whose site names no software that can read its exported wallet file. Strike Send Globally was scored on an August FAQ that gave the payout method for each country; its support page now gives one list for all 13 countries.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Both rows were re-read on 28 October from the providers’ own current pages. Bitcoin Keeper’s recovery score drops three points and Strike Send Globally’s corridor score drops one, each by the published ladder; the page text behind every score is committed.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 28 October cadence re-read of seven categories, which could read strike.me again and found the Bitcoin Keeper help centre gone.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. In key_recovery, Bitcoin Keeper (BitHyve) moves #6 53 → #7 47 and Unchained moves #7 49 → #6 49. In remittances, Strike Send Globally moves 70 → 69 and keeps fourth place. No #1 changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-tail2-re-read",
        "file:scripts/check-evidence-dates-are-reads.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0081",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0081",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "governance_tools",
        "shared_sequencers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Aragon (OSx + Aragon App)",
        "Rome Protocol"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Aragon scored 9 on published price for a no-fee sentence its rebuilt docs no longer carry (the page answers HTTP 404). Rome Protocol scored 1 on named mainnet chains as testnet-only, but its docs now name a mainnet, Rubicon, whose endpoint answers.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Aragon moved from 79 to 76 in governance_tools because its published-price criterion fell from 9 to 7. Rome Protocol moved from 57 to 64 in shared_sequencers because its named-mainnet criterion rose from 1 to 4. Both receipts quote the pages read on 28 October.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 28 October cadence re-read of seven categories, page by page from the providers’ own sources.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published order changed: Aragon stays #2 and Rome Protocol stays #4.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-tail1-re-read",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-10-28-governance_tools.json",
        "file:research-pending/rereads/2026-10-28-shared_sequencers.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0079",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0079",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "liquid_staking",
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "OKX",
        "Bitstamp",
        "Kraken",
        "Coinbase",
        "Bitvavo",
        "Gemini",
        "Bybit",
        "Coinbase Staking",
        "ether.fi Cash"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "OKX's EU spot-only rate (0.20% taker) was stored as its rate for every reader, so a reader in the UK or Asia was priced at the EU entity's fee; the exchange score read the dearest rate any entity charges, so readers were ranked on prices other readers pay; ether.fi Cash was made eligible from a country list whose page now returns 404.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The EU, US and UK rates of Bitstamp, Kraken, Coinbase, Bitvavo, Gemini, OKX and Bybit were read from their own fee pages on 28 October; each reader is now priced and scored on the rate of the entity serving their country, and a rate that could not be read is shown as \"regional rate not read\". OKX's EU rate applies to EEA readers only. Coinbase Staking prints the 35% in-app commission beside cbETH's 10%. ether.fi Cash no longer relies on the dead list.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A review of the 28 October price corrections found the dearest-rate rule and OKX's base rate; the owner ruled the same day that each reader is scored by their own entity's rate.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Exchange: Bybit stays #1; Bitstamp #2; OKX falls from #2 to #7 (no base rate). Readers in the EEA and the United States see Bitstamp first, scored on their entities' fees.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-regional-rates-read",
        "methodology:2026.10.14#0",
        "file:scripts/check-regional-pricing.ts",
        "file:tests/country-landing-order.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0078",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0078",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bill_pay",
        "bridges",
        "cross_chain_swaps",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "dex",
        "exchange",
        "governance_tools",
        "incentive_distribution",
        "key_recovery",
        "kyc_compliance",
        "liquid_staking",
        "market_data_apis",
        "nft_lending",
        "relayers",
        "remittances",
        "revoke_tools",
        "screeners",
        "seed_backup",
        "sentiment_analytics",
        "shared_sequencers",
        "simple_buy",
        "tokenised_commodities",
        "wallet",
        "wrapped_assets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Strike Bill Pay",
        "Bitvavo",
        "CoinDCX",
        "Absinthe Labs",
        "Messari API",
        "NFTfi",
        "JPEG'd",
        "Gelato Relay",
        "Strike Send Globally",
        "DEX Screener",
        "Birdeye",
        "Radius",
        "AltLayer SQUAD",
        "Coinbase Wallet",
        "Exodus",
        "Coinbase Wrapped BTC (cbBTC)",
        "Common (formerly Commonwealth)",
        "Bitcoin Keeper (BitHyve)",
        "BitBox Steelwallet",
        "cookie.fun (Cookie DAO)",
        "VNX Gold (VNXAU)",
        "River",
        "Bitpanda",
        "Revolut Crypto",
        "Coinbase (Simple Buy)",
        "PancakeSwap",
        "SushiSwap",
        "Maverick Protocol",
        "Trader Joe (LFJ)",
        "Balancer",
        "Raydium"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Evidence cells that a re-read could not verify (a 403 bot wall, a page gone) were published with an empty quote, no source and the re-read’s date, and their rows took that date: Revolut Crypto and Coinbase (Simple Buy), every page behind a bot wall on 28 October, were shown as verified that day, and the review dates of the categories above were too fresh. Raydium’s note named a June 2026 exploit its own incident list does not, and Balancer’s gave a loss figure its own post-mortem does not.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each such cell keeps its last real read (quote, source and date) and says when a re-read could not verify it, a cell never read carries no date, and a row keeps its last full read. Raydium’s unsourced exploit is removed and Balancer’s figure is its post-mortem’s $121.1M.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An adversarial review of the 28 October dex and simple_buy re-read found walled cells dated 28 October over empty quotes.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; only read dates, the receipts behind 74 cells and two notes changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-28-evidence-dates-are-reads",
        "data:2026-10-28-dex-simple-buy-re-read",
        "file:scripts/check-evidence-dates-are-reads.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0091",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0081-0100#CC-2026-0091",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-27",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-27",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "simple_buy",
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Finst",
        "BISON",
        "BSDEX",
        "Scalable Capital"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Four crypto apps a German buyer compares first were not ranked here. BISON sat on the Simple Buy refusal list for an unpublished spread although its cost page now publishes one; Finst had never been researched; BSDEX had never been researched; and Scalable Capital had no refusal at all. Trade Republic, the fifth, is corrected in CC-2026-0088.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each was read from its own pages on 27 October 2026. Finst and BISON enter Simple Buy, each scored with verbatim quotes against the published criteria, and Scalable Capital is refused because its crypto is held as exchange-traded products, not coins a buyer can withdraw. BSDEX, Börse Stuttgart’s order book for German residents, enters Crypto Exchanges with its published 0.20% maker and 0.35% taker fee, and Scalable Capital is refused in Crypto Exchanges on the same read.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A comparison against the crypto ranking German readers see most often found none of the five in the published rankings.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. In simple_buy BISON enters at #3 (44) and Finst enters at #5 (41); Relai #3 → #4; Trade Republic #4 → #6; Bitpanda #5 → #7; River #6 → #8; Uphold #7 → #9; Fidelity Crypto #8 → #10; PayPal Crypto #9 → #11; Cash App Bitcoin #10 → #12; Revolut Crypto #11 → #13; Robinhood Crypto #12 → #14. Strike stays #1 in Simple Buy. In exchange BSDEX enters at #12 (59); Bitstamp 80 → 79, Coinbase 70 → 69, Luno 70 → 68, OKX 68 → 67, Bit2Me 65 → 64, Kraken 60 → 59, Gemini 48 → 47; VALR #12 → #13, Gemini #13 → #14, CoinDCX #14 → #15, Mercado Bitcoin #15 → #16, Bitso #16 → #17. Bybit stays #1 in Crypto Exchanges.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-27-german-market-rows",
        "data:2026-10-27-bsdex-joins-exchange",
        "file:scripts/check-pool-matches-research.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-refusals-carry-review.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier",
      "caughtBy": "editorial_review"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0077",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0077",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-23",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-23",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bridges"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Hop Protocol",
        "Synapse"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Hop Protocol stayed in the bridges ranking with a link to hop.exchange for 23 days after our own re-read found that the domain served an unrelated gambling page and that Hop's app and route service did not answer; on 23 October it still served that page. Synapse's record told readers to treat it as unavailable, which a read of its bridge contract on the same day did not bear out.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Hop Protocol carries a sunset date of 23 October 2026: it is kept for reference with its criteria block at zero, links to its code repository, and no page draws a Visit for it. Synapse's note now states what was read on 23 October, and a build check fails whenever a row that says it is unavailable has no sunset date or any link points at a host that served gambling or unrelated content.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A check of the live bridges page on 23 October 2026 followed Hop Protocol's Visit link to the gambling page.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The published bridges order and every published score are unchanged: Hop Protocol was already last (#18, 41) and stays there as a sunset row. Hop Protocol is removed from the bridges list on the country pages for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam, which list only products that operate.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-23-hop-protocol-withdrawn",
        "methodology:2026.10.12#0",
        "file:scripts/check-no-dead-outbound-links.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0076",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0076",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-21",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-21",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "l2_chains"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Polygon zkEVM"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Polygon zkEVM was still recorded as a ZK rollup with ZK finality. L2BEAT lists it with no proof system (category \"Other\", State Validation \"None\"), so Find my best’s \"fast, trust-minimised exit to Ethereum\" answer, which keeps only ZK rollups, still offered it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The record carries rollupType no_proof_system, as Blast and Manta Pacific have since 2026-09-13, and its notes say so.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A re-read of L2BEAT’s scaling summary API on 2026-10-21 (round-7 data freshness).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The published l2_chains order and every score are unchanged; in Find my best with a fast exit asked, eligible rows fall from 7 to 6 and Polygon zkEVM (last) leaves the list.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-21-polygon-zkevm-no-proof-system"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0075",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0075",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Correction CC-2026-0071 said that a gate reads every sentence of the site's process copy. It reads the trust logs, the claim types, the jurisdiction texts and the methodology specs, as string literals only. The rewrite that entry described also left role nouns for model work on live pages: the retired-category notes on six /family pages, the institutional execution FAQ and its structured data, a /methodology sentence, two guides, and about forty sentences in provider notes, among them research notes never meant for readers (“PUBLICATION GUARDRAILS FOR THE EDITOR”, a working file's name, “to me today”).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each of those sentences now says a model run did the work, or states the fact without naming an actor, and the research notes were rewritten as statements for the reader. Widening that gate to every sentence the site renders is open work, recorded under CT-EDIT-008 in the master audit.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A re-audit of CT-EDIT-008 on 2026-10-13 read the live family, provider, FAQ and guide pages after CC-2026-0071 went live.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; the wording of the pages changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-roster-is-real.ts",
        "file:src/lib/categoryTaxonomy.ts",
        "file:src/lib/catalog/billPayPool.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0074",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0074",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The pages and files that state our licence disagreed on what it covers: llms.txt granted \"terms equivalent to CC BY 4.0\" for editorial content, llms-full.txt called the datasets \"functionally public domain\", robots.txt licensed \"ChainChoice's content\", /terms named four files and the Impressum reserved every right to everything. Seventeen of the 23 files at the top of /data/ and all 14 KPI history files carried no licence, and answers.json carried the licence URL where every other file carries its id.",
      "whatWeFixed": "One scope statement, kept in src/lib/dataLicence.ts, now appears word for word wherever the licence is stated, in all six locales and in the signed Impressum (v5.2026.10.13): CC BY 4.0 covers the data (every file under /data/, /datasets/ and /methodology/spec/, the answers and the embed payload), not the site's other pages, and robots.txt adds that what was published under its earlier notice stays licensed as published. Every data file carries the licence id, third-party figures carry a note naming their source's terms, and check-dataset-has-licence reads the files the build ships.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading every licence statement against owner decision O-05 for the master audit's data-licence rows (SEO-AI-002, ST-DATA-010) on 2026-10-13.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-dataset-has-licence.ts",
        "file:src/lib/dataLicence.ts",
        "file:public/robots.txt"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0073",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0073",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The signed German affiliate disclosure (v2.2026.08.19, served at /api/v1?_route=affiliate-disclosure) said that every recommendation produces a signed decision receipt and that the guarantee can be checked in public source code. No recommendation on the portal emits a receipt (the Impressum, this disclosure and Octopus do), the source code is not public, and the five factors it said the ranking uses are not the published methodology's dimensions.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Version v3.2026.10.13 names what a reader can check: every published order is in /data/rankings.json and can be recomputed from that file alone, with its SHA-256 in the page footer; the two build checks that keep payment out of ranking and search are named, their results are in /data/build-checks.json and on /methodology, and it says the source code is private. It points to the partner list by its address and is served with a new signed receipt.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading every page and file that states a licence or a guarantee for the master audit's data-licence row (ST-DATA-010) on 2026-10-13.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; the text of the disclosure changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:api/_lib/disclosure/affiliateDisclosure.ts",
        "file:api/_lib/receipts/emit.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0072",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0072",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The CLARITY Act hub and our essay on the bill expanded its name as \"Consolidated Lewis-Robust Asset Reform Implementation Title\", which no bill carries (it is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, H.R. 3633), and said it was still in the House Financial Services Committee with House passage likely in 2026, when the House had passed it on 17 July 2025, 294–134. After the Senate rejected cloture on 15 September 2026, 49–50, the hub still listed both votes as \"TBD 2026\" and the essay, its page head and the readiness index still wrote \"when it passes\".",
      "whatWeFixed": "The hub, both essays, their page heads and /llms.txt give the bill's name and its dated record (House 294–134 on 17 July 2025, Senate Agriculture 12–11 on 29 January 2026, Senate Banking 15–9 on 14 May 2026, cloture rejected 49–50 on 15 September 2026; not law as of 13 October 2026), and write what it would change as conditional on passage. A test fails if the invented name or an undated \"when the CLARITY Act passes\" returns.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Rewriting /llms.txt for the master audit on 2026-10-13, which checked the name against the bill and found the same text on two live pages; the status was read that day at Latham & Watkins' US Crypto Policy Tracker and in Troutman Pepper Locke's note of 25 September 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; the readiness index's scores are unchanged.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/complianceHubs.ts",
        "file:src/lib/insights.ts",
        "file:tests/clarity-act-status.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0071",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0071",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-13",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Our methodology changelog, this corrections log, the data changelog, the claim types on /methodology and several criterion texts described how the research is done as if people did it: \"a three-lens panel and a judge\", \"an independent verifier\", \"an adversarial reconciler\", \"an independent skeptic\", \"the scoping analysts\", \"the research team\" and \"An editor read it at a named source\". The reading, verifying and judging are done by language-model runs, as /methodology/evidence-process says, and the roster is two managing directors and six scripts.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each of those 87 sentences now says it was a model run, with its facts, dates and quotes unchanged. A gate reads every sentence of the site's process copy and fails one that names a team, panel, judge, editor, verifier, reviewer, analyst, researcher, reconciler or skeptic without saying it was a model run or naming a person on the roster; the 32 uses that are a category's own vocabulary (a bug-bounty platform's users, a protocol's verifying contracts, a provider's own staff) are listed by name with the reason.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A refutation pass on the master audit's row for invented roles (CT-EDIT-008) on 2026-10-13 read the live pages, where the roster check had read only the roster.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; the wording of the record changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-roster-is-real.ts",
        "file:src/lib/trust/methodologyVersions.ts",
        "file:src/lib/claims.ts",
        "file:src/lib/decision/jurisdiction.ts",
        "file:src/lib/trust/dataChangelog.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0070",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0070",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "tax_software",
        "stablecoins"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Pages named winners the published ranking does not: the US exchange guide called Coinbase \"the most regulator-aligned choice\" and Gemini \"the best NY-native pick\" (published #6 and #11 of 14) while the US country page named OKX, and the German guide and its FAQ structured data called Bitpanda, which the exchange ranking does not carry, \"the strongest match\" while the German country page named Bybit. A comparison guide, four reviews, an EU guide (\"Bitvavo wins on fees\", \"the cheapest MiCA-licensed exchange\"), two cards, a catalogue note and the assistant (\"USDC is usually the cleaner broad default\", published #2) did the same.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The US and German guides open with the answer their country pages give, generated at build by the same functions; the other passages say what each product fits. A gate reads every sentence on the site and fails on one that crowns a ranked product.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Checking 30 live head-to-head pages against rankings.json for the master audit on 2026-10-11, then searching the rest of the site for the same claim.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; the pages now repeat it.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/components/UsaFlagshipPage.tsx",
        "file:src/components/ChooseExchangeGermanyPage.tsx",
        "file:scripts/generate-country-leads.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-editorial-no-shadow-ranking.ts",
        "file:tests/named-crown.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0069",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0069",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The consent bar on every first visit cited the TTDSG, which has been the TDDDG since 14 May 2024. The compliance guide said the ePrivacy Directive was implemented \"as TTDSG in Germany\" with an ePrivacy Regulation \"proposed at EU level\"; the Commission withdrew that proposal in its 2025 work programme. It also said ChainChoice \"uses cookieless Plausible analytics\", leaving out Cloudflare Web Analytics and that both load only after a visitor accepts.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The bar names the TDDDG; the guide names the TDDDG with its former name and date, calls the Regulation withdrawn, and lists both measurement scripts and the consent they wait for. A test fails on the old Act name used as current and on the Regulation called pending.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading the privacy rows of the master audit on 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/components/CookieConsent.tsx",
        "file:src/lib/complianceHubs.ts",
        "file:tests/law-names-current.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0068",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0068",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The usage notes on /datasets said \"Commercial bulk redistribution requires the partner API\". The data files are published under CC BY 4.0, which allows commercial reuse with credit, and the files and their Dataset markup said so. The notes also said decision receipts can be verified against a key-set endpoint that answers 404 (recommendation receipts are hashed, not signed), and that signed receipts are immutable once issued.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The notes now state the licence the files carry, CC BY 4.0 with credit to ChainChoice, read from the one constant every file uses; say which documents come with a signed receipt and where to check one; and say only that a signed receipt's id is derived from a hash of what it states. A test holds the notes to that.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading /datasets in a browser to check the 2026-10-11 fix to its entries found the same claims in the notes beneath them.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/components/DatasetsHubPage.tsx",
        "file:src/lib/dataLicence.ts",
        "file:tests/datasets-hub-links.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0067",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0067",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The /trust page, headed \"What is true today, and what is not\", listed as in production that a receipt \"cannot be edited after write — write-once enforced at the database layer\"; the database lets a receipt's owner update it, and ChainChoice writes outcome, moderation and account fields after the write. It said a receipt is \"replayable\"; nothing re-runs one, and a model-written answer would not come out the same. It said a drift engine \"writes a successor receipt\" when a watched figure moves; nothing writes one. It said database access is gated by row-level security policies, a claim withdrawn until every policy is reviewed. It promised a PDF committee brief for Q3, which was never built. The five translations of the page said the same. Separately, /datasets called the index of the country pages' receipt IDs a feed of \"signed decision receipts\" with a \"signing key reference\", linked a key set \"for verifying every signed ChainChoice receipt\" at an address that answers 404, and described the client and the OpenAPI document as generated, with retry and verification helpers neither has.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The page now lists what the receipt code does: only fields outside the content hash change after the write, the engine stamp identifies what produced an answer without making it reproducible, and drift is computed when a receipt is opened and not stored. The source archive, governance log and successor receipts are listed as started and not running, the PDF brief as not built, and the translations show the English page. /datasets describes each file as it is and lists no key set. Tests hold the page to the receipt claims /institutional retired on 2026-09-14 and to what the code writes, and every /datasets link to a file, route or page that exists.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Rewriting the partner API documentation on 2026-10-11 surfaced the same receipt claims on /trust that /institutional had dropped a month earlier.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/i18n/uiContent.en.ts",
        "file:tests/trust-page-claims.test.ts",
        "file:src/components/DatasetsHubPage.tsx",
        "file:tests/datasets-hub-links.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0066",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0066",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The /docs page for the partner API said the separation between the ranking and our commercial relationships is \"externally audited annually\"; no outside party has ever audited it. It said \"EU recommendations filter to MiCA-licensed venues\" and that \"US recommendations align with state registrations\", where the API removes the rows the engine excludes for a stated country and does nothing by licence or state. It offered a free tier and a paid tier at $24,000 a year that ChainChoice does not sell, a partner dashboard and self-serve keys that do not exist, and documented the request and response retired on 2026-09-14 (a recommendation \"for you\", an effective-cost percentage). The vendored TypeScript client typed every response in that retired shape, and the OpenAPI document described a deletion response and error fields no endpoint returns.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The page now describes the API that runs: the pick from the published order, the country filter, the fields read and the fields accepted and ignored, what a receipt holds, the limits, and keys by agreement with no price list. The audit claim is gone and the page says no outside party has audited the firewall. The client and the OpenAPI document match the handlers, and a test holds the spec, the client and the page to the handlers that answer.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Checking whether the partner API had an OpenAPI document on 2026-10-11 led to the /docs page, which still printed the contract retired a month earlier.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/components/DocsPage.tsx",
        "file:public/docs/sdk/chainchoice.ts",
        "file:tests/openapi-matches-handlers.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0065",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0065",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "methodology",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "wallet",
        "stablecoins",
        "crypto_card",
        "staking",
        "onramp",
        "tax_software",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "bridges",
        "web3_apps",
        "mpc_wallets",
        "defi_dashboards",
        "decentralised_id",
        "layer1_chains",
        "rpc_nodes",
        "decentralised_compute",
        "decentralised_storage"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Ten /best pages said their ranking runs on four \"setup signals\" that neither the ranking nor any quiz reads (\"The wallet path ranks on the same four setup signals every time\", \"Criteria evaluated before recommending a wallet recommendation\", with Primary goal, Network fit, Access mode and Confidence driver listed as the criteria); the same four appeared on those categories' review and category pages as \"The engine would validate this provider against these inputs\", and wallet reviews said they validate \"ecosystem fit\" and \"access mode\", which the wallet methodology does not score. Separately, 310 provider descriptions named their strongest and weakest criterion in broken case (\"Strongest on can i export my own keys and use them elsewhere?\", \"validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient\"), six of them by a criterion's old name, and nineteen lines of category copy in seven categories lowered acronyms and names (\"soc 2\", \"1m identical calls\", \"nakamoto\").",
      "whatWeFixed": "The four-signal block is gone from every page that carried it; the criteria and weights the ranking does use are listed on each category's /best page. Every description names its criteria by their current names and by the site's one rule for a label in a sentence, a criterion written as a question quoted whole (“Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?”), and the category lines keep their acronyms and names. Where a verdict's firmness note names a question criterion, it quotes it too. The two research scripts that write those descriptions and the one that reads them back now call that rule, and tests fail a description, a script or a category line that lowers a label its own way.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading published descriptions for cut-off sentences on 2026-10-11 turned up a lowercase \"i\"; tracing what else lowered labels found the rest.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/prose-label-one-rule.test.ts",
        "file:src/lib/labelInSentence.ts",
        "file:src/components/BestCategoryPage.tsx"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0064",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0064",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "195 published notes stopped mid-word or mid-quotation. The licence and regulatory notes on provider pages were cut at exactly 400 characters when each category was built (\"… Date Initial MSB Regis\", \"… as ou\"), network-coverage notes at 155, and some evidence notes and descriptions elsewhere; a few notes also showed a stray backslash before a quotation mark.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each note now ends at its last complete sentence, or, where the cut fell inside a long quotation, marks the cut with \"…\" and closes the quotation; no wording was added. The script that builds a category now trims a note at a sentence boundary instead of a character count, and a build check fails any published note or refusal that stops mid-sentence.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Rewriting catalog notes for readers on 2026-10-11 surfaced six cut-off strings; measuring the pattern found the rest.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-prose-complete.ts",
        "file:scripts/author-category-from-research.mjs"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0063",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0063",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "tax_software",
        "stablecoins",
        "stablecoin_settlement",
        "stablecoin_issuance",
        "money_market_funds",
        "dev_frameworks",
        "fixed_rate_yield"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Blockpit",
        "PwC",
        "Frax",
        "Ripple",
        "Circle",
        "Paxos",
        "Foundry"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "/crypto-tax-tools-dach and the Blockpit review said Blockpit offers a \"PWC review\" and a \"PwC partnership for higher-volume audit\". This site's own re-read on 29 September found no mention of PwC on any of 33 Blockpit pages, only an unnamed claim of \"cooperation with Big4 companies\"; the same pages named the company \"Blockpit GmbH\", where its terms are issued by Blockpit AG, and said it has no free tier, where portfolio tracking is free. Separately, about 200 sentences in row watchouts and evidence notes were published in the research notes' own voice (\"I raised it 8 to 9 on a fact the draft never found\", \"WARNING FOR THE NEXT READER\", \"Corrected during verification: the draft said …\"), and six published strings stopped mid-sentence (\"… and sits under th\").",
      "whatWeFixed": "The PwC claim is replaced by Blockpit's own unnamed wording, and the entity and the free tier are corrected. The watchouts and notes say what was checked and what it showed, every figure, date and quote kept, and the truncated strings end at their last complete sentence. The research voice is now gone from every catalog row; the 19 places it remains are methodology criteria, listed by name, and the list may only shrink.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Rewriting the research notes for readers on 2026-10-11: Blockpit's own record said to delete the PwC strings, and nobody had.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/catalog/taxSoftwarePool.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-catalog-voice.ts",
        "file:scripts/lib/catalog-process-voice.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0062",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0062",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "stablecoin_settlement",
        "stablecoin_issuance",
        "proof_of_personhood",
        "bill_pay",
        "liquid_lockers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "VALR",
        "Bridge",
        "BVNK",
        "dLocal",
        "Zero Hash",
        "Coins.ph"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "This site's own availability notes were printed in the wizard's warnings and on the \"best for\" pages under \"Provider states:\", so a provider appeared to say what our research had written: VALR's read \"Provider states: What I found is the standard sanctions representation\". The notes, and several row summaries and category pages, were also published in the research notes' own voice: four Stablecoin Settlement summaries said \"Corrected during verification: the draft said …\", Proof of Personhood's headline evidence said \"the draft understated how uneven it is\", the Stablecoin Issuance guide called the page \"an authority asset rather than a revenue line\", and three bill-pay notes explained the site's source code.",
      "whatWeFixed": "An availability note is now attributed to ChainChoice (\"ChainChoice's note:\"), and the provider's own words inside it stay in quotation marks. The availability notes, the summaries and the category copy are rewritten for a reader, keeping every dated read and quote. A build check reads every catalog row, every category page and every methodology's criteria for that voice; the 152 places it remains, mostly row watchouts, are listed by name and the list may only shrink.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Verifying batch 109 on production on 2026-10-11: the tax-software catalog still said \"the draft dropped\".",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-catalog-voice.ts",
        "file:scripts/lib/catalog-process-voice.json",
        "file:src/lib/claims.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0061",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0061-0080#CC-2026-0061",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [
        "Criptan",
        "AMINA",
        "Sygnum Bank",
        "Foxbit",
        "CriptoLab",
        "Nuri"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The /health-check picker showed a one-line description nobody had sourced under 238 of the names it offers, 115 of them names this site has never reviewed, and several of the lines were regulatory claims: \"Spanish CNMV-registered crypto exchange\", \"Swiss FINMA-licensed crypto bank\", \"Italian crypto exchange (OAM-registered VASP)\", \"Brazilian regulated crypto exchange\", \"German crypto banking (status: discontinued)\". A licence is a fact a register confirms or denies, and none of these had been checked; the same lines also shipped in the page's code.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every name the picker offers now carries the state the rest of the site gives it: ranked (with the category), considered and not ranked, archived, or \"Not reviewed by ChainChoice\", and an unreviewed name shows no description. The descriptions are gone from the code that ships, and the type no longer allows one. A build check holds each state against the published placements and the refusal index.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Audit row CT-CENS-007 (no orphan names), read against the live picker on 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The health scan ranks nothing, and no published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/generate-health-picker-review.ts",
        "file:tests/health-picker-review.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0060",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0060",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "paid_research_seats",
        "decentralised_storage",
        "cdp_stablecoins",
        "tax_software",
        "onramp",
        "liquid_staking",
        "wrapped_assets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "CertiK",
        "0G",
        "Angle Labs",
        "Pekuna",
        "Summ",
        "Yellow Card",
        "Lombard"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "A further 90 refusal reasons were published in the research notes' own voice: \"VERIFIED: I fetched …\", what an earlier draft had said and how it was corrected, \"both analysts\", \"the judge\", \"adjudicated\", internal ids and file names. Several also quoted things a reader could not find or that had changed. The CertiK Skynet refusal quoted the Smart-contract Audits record with a sentence that record no longer carries; the 0G Storage refusal quoted an older wording of the 0G DA note; the Angle refusal quoted a code comment as if it were the Merkl record. Two refusal names were stale: Pekuna's said the catalog \"ranks it today\" (it does not), and the Australian Crypto Tax Calculator listing was still called \"the pool's most damaging defect\" after it had been folded into the ranked Summ row. The Yellow Card refusal repeated an aggregator integration it marked unverified.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each refusal says what was checked, when, and what it showed, in the published category names, with the quotes replaced by what the records say now and the unverified claim removed. The Wrapped Assets LBTC row's summary and watchout, which still described the Babylon staking LBTC no longer uses (an 8% rewards fee, a slashing exposure, an unbonding queue), now describe the covered-call strategy and the 20% fee on its gains that the row's own 24 September re-read recorded. The list of refusals still in that voice is empty, and a refusal written in that voice now fails the build.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Burning down the list that check-exclusions-published started on 2026-10-11 (CC-2026-0059).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-exclusions-published.ts",
        "file:scripts/lib/refusal-process-voice.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0059",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0059",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "trading_tools",
        "liquid_staking",
        "token_standards",
        "subscriptions",
        "key_recovery",
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coinigy",
        "3Commas",
        "Cryptohopper",
        "Babylon",
        "Coinbase Commerce",
        "Serenity Shield",
        "Multichain"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Refusal reasons (\"Considered and not ranked\") were published as the research notes had them: source-file paths and line numbers, internal ids, and its own vocabulary (\"Proposal B\", \"the judge\", \"this rebuild\"). Some of that text was also out of date or wrong. Trading tools said the category \"currently scores\" automation capability and exchange-API coverage, two criteria it had stopped using. Liquid staking quoted the Restaking category as excluding \"Bitcoin restaking (Babylon, Lombard, SolvBTC)\", words Restaking does not publish. Token standards said four messaging protocols carry a token standard ranked here, where five do. Subscriptions said Coinbase Commerce is ranked among payment gateways, where it is compared only for US and Singapore merchants. Two refusals carried statements about firms with no source: a wallet-compromise date for Serenity Shield, and a court claim about Multichain that the text itself said was unverified.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The refusals on those pages say what was checked, when, and what it showed, in words a reader can use, with the wrong statements corrected and the unsourced ones removed. A build check fails any refusal that publishes a source-file reference or that vocabulary. The 90 refusals still written in that voice are listed by name, and the list may only shrink.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading the crypto-card refusals for audit row TC-MEDIA-001 on 2026-10-11, then every refusal for the same pattern.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-exclusions-published.ts",
        "file:scripts/lib/refusal-process-voice.json"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0058",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0058",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card",
        "mining_pools"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kulipa",
        "UAB Monavate",
        "HashFlare"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two published refusal reasons made adverse statements about named firms that no loaded source supported. Crypto cards called Ready Card, Solflare Card and their issuer Kulipa \"DEAD OR SANCTIONED, AND UNVERIFIED\" beside \"the UAB Monavate regulatory notice\" (Monavate issues two ranked cards), in a note that called itself quotable nowhere. Mining pools called the cloud-hashrate segment it named \"scam-dense\" and repeated a criminal charge against HashFlare's operators that its own text said must first be loaded from the Department of Justice's release.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Kulipa's cards are listed as not ranked because their status could not be confirmed from a primary source, and the lead stays in the research notes; the mining-pools refusal gives its structural reason only. A build check fails any published refusal or catalog row that calls a named firm a scam, a fraud, insolvent, sanctioned or criminal without a regulator, court or law-enforcement source, and any refusal reason that reads as a research lead.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Audit row TC-MEDIA-001 named both on 2026-09-30.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-adverse-claims.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0057",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0057",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The market-signal feed (/account, the landing variants, the command center) printed figures computed from typed constants as market data: \"DeFi TVL\" was two pools' value plus a typed $170 billion, and hardware-wallet shipments, the Visa stablecoin settlement run-rate and crypto-card daily spend each grew from a typed baseline. It stated unsourced claims and one false one (\"licensed platforms also carry deposit insurance\"), gave trading instructions (\"Stake into the rally\", \"Deploying idle stablecoins into the highest-yield protocol now captures the spike\", and, picked by keyword from a headline, \"Stop new deposits to the named venue until the story clears\"), and dated every editorial card with an invented \"published X ago\" time. The provider dashboard printed fees from a table dated 1 April under an undated \"static\" label.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The feed carries only signals built from fetched data (CoinGecko, DefiLlama, alternative.me, the article feed and exchange status pages), each with its figure or headline and its source, and none tells a reader what to buy, sell, hold or when; a test runs every branch and fails on that language. The dashboard's live block is gone.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading every reader of live data for audit rows BC-LIVE-002 and BC-LIVE-006 on 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/signals-are-fetched-data.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0056",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0056",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "lending_borrowing",
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Venus",
        "Morpho",
        "Kraken",
        "Gemini"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The fee term of Measured data read rates and fees from a table dated 1 April 2026 instead of the catalog. In lending it scored each protocol's borrow rate (Morpho 4.9 % to Venus 7.1 %), on a page that says lending is not ranked on rates, and that rate made Morpho the #1; in a browser, once the yield feed loaded, every pool it returned read a borrow rate of 0. In exchanges it scored Kraken at a 0.26 % taker fee and Gemini at 0.40 %, where their current schedules say 0.80 % and 1.20 %.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The fee term reads only the fee a provider publishes, as the catalog records it and re-reads on the 45-day review; lending has no fee term, so it ranks on its published criteria. /methodology/live-data publishes the rule, and on every build a test fills each live feed with extreme values and fails if one score moves.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading the fee term for audit row BC-LIVE-002 (which live fields may enter a score) on 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "Lending and borrowing: Venus #7 → #1, Spark #2, Morpho #1 → #3, Compound #8 → #6. Exchanges: Kraken #6 → #9, Gemini #10 → #11, Coinbase, Luno, Bitvavo and VALR up one place each; Bybit stays #1. Corrected 2026-10-14: the scores that moved with this order, some of which this entry left out: exchanges Bitstamp 77 → 79, Coinbase 64 → 69, Luno 64 → 69, Kraken 73 → 60, VALR 56 → 58, Gemini 59 → 48 and Mercado Bitcoin 41 → 42 (Bitvavo #9 → #8 at 62); lending Venus 58 → 81, Spark 78 → 80, Morpho 83 → 78, Euler V2 68 → 77 (#3 → #4), Kamino Lend 65 → 74 (#4 → #5), Compound 58 → 74, Fluid 64 → 73 (#5 → #7) and Aave 62 → 71 (#6 → #8).",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.10.9#0",
        "methodology:2026.10.9#1",
        "file:tests/live-data-moves-no-score.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0055",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0055",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "all"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The provider dashboard (/dashboard/<provider>) ranked each provider on five dimensions of its own, scored from capability flags and keywords, and printed that rank as its place in the category: 784 of 980 rows showed a rank the published ranking does not hold (Coinbase #4 where it is published #7), beside 'improvements' with effects it estimated itself. The page could be indexed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The dashboard reads only the published ranking: the published rank and neighbour, each published dimension beside the category's average, and the published gap to the best-placed row on each; it predicts nothing, loads no catalog and is no longer indexed. A test compares every row it shows with rankings.json.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Audit row CT-PRTL-001 measured the gap on 2026-09-30; fixed 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved; the dashboard now prints it.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/provider-dashboard-published.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0054",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0054",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-11",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "liquid_staking",
        "onramp",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "staking",
        "tax_software",
        "trading_tools"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "FAQ answers, a quick answer and two headline lines in eight categories named criteria their rankings no longer score: 'What matters most when choosing a crypto card?' was answered 'Regional eligibility, spend utility, funding model, and issuer confidence', where cards are ranked on what a swipe abroad costs, whether the programme survives, whose licence issues the card and whether spending creates a taxable disposal; staking's quick answer and headline led with custody posture and post-staking utility, two criteria the category dropped.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each is rewritten from its category's current criteria and weights, the FAQ answers state those weights in a form the weight check reads, and the build fails any surface, the decision guide included, that names two or more criteria a specification has retired.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Holding the quick answers, FAQ answers and key questions to their specifications' criteria for audit row AI-EVAL-001 on 2026-10-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-promise-methodology-alignment.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0053",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0053",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "socialfi"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The Social-Fi page listed \"A failure-history / 'already walked away' axis (Proposal A, weight 18)\" among the products considered and not ranked. It was never a product but a criterion the methodology did not adopt, and the category counted it as one of 17 products assessed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The note sits beside the criteria as the reason for that decision; Social-Fi counts 16 products assessed, 8 ranked and 8 turned away, and check-exclusions-published fails a refusal whose name or reason reads as a note about the criteria.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading the refusal index while testing the assistant's answer for products this site turned away (AI-EVAL-004), 2026-10-10.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-10-socialfi-refusal-not-a-product"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0052",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0052",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bill_pay",
        "crypto_card",
        "payment_gateway"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coinbase Commerce"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "When no product in a category served the country entered, the list shown for reference printed scores no page publishes, in an order that was not the published one (35 country runs; for crypto cards in New Zealand it led with the published #3), and the explorer gave Coinbase Commerce, which the published payment-gateway ranking does not hold, its position in the US run as its overall rank.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The reference list is the published order with the published scores, and the explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; check-wizard-country-excludes fails a fallback out of the published order or with an unpublished score.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Re-reading audit row CT-RANK-017 on 2026-10-10 over every category and every country a reader can state.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.10.8#0",
        "methodology:2026.10.8#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0051",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0051",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "automation_keepers",
        "crypto_card",
        "fixed_rate_yield",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "liquid_staking",
        "onramp",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "remittances",
        "restaking",
        "stablecoin_issuance",
        "stablecoins",
        "staking",
        "tax_software",
        "trading_tools",
        "wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Review pages in eleven categories stated a review standard in an older methodology's criteria (/reviews/metamask: 'Reviewed on custody posture, network fit, operational clarity, and access mode', where wallets are ranked on signing visibility, key export, incident disclosure and recovery), and the headline on the /best pages for fixed-rate yield, automation keepers, stablecoin issuance and remittances, with the remittances category summary, named another category's criteria or an outdated set.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each of the 49 review standards, comparison standards and summaries the new check flagged is rewritten from its category's own criteria and weights, drafted from the spec and checked against it by a second model run told to refute it, and the build fails a standard that names fewer than half of its category's criteria or copy that reads as another category's.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The coverage and sibling checks added for audit row AI-EVAL-001 on 2026-10-10 flagged them; each was rewritten the same day.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-promise-methodology-alignment.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0050",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0050",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bridges",
        "crypto_card",
        "hardware_wallet",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "liquid_staking",
        "nft_marketplace",
        "onramp",
        "payment_gateway",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "restaking",
        "stablecoins",
        "staking",
        "tax_software",
        "trading_tools",
        "wallet",
        "web3_apps"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Provider review pages printed each criterion's weight a hundred times over: the rubric on /reviews/metamask read ×2800%, ×3000% and ×2400% for criteria the methodology weighs 28%, 30% and 24%, and so did every review page that shows it.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The rubric prints the weight the methodology publishes, and a test fails any source that multiplies a methodology weight by 100 outside the two places whose weights are fractions of one.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Tracing every weight the site prints while re-reading audit row AI-EVAL-001 on 2026-10-10.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/spec-weights-print-as-percent.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0049",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0049",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "automation_keepers",
        "institutional_custody",
        "key_recovery",
        "market_data_apis",
        "mev_protection",
        "prediction_markets",
        "restaking",
        "seed_backup",
        "stablecoin_issuance",
        "stablecoins"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The category pages for automation keepers, market-data APIs and stablecoin issuance summarised another category's criteria (the relayers', the indexers' and stablecoin settlement's) and seed backups an outdated set; the restaking and stablecoins answers on /best stated weights their methodology no longer uses; and the assistant told readers that prediction markets, MEV protection, seed backups, key recovery and institutional custody are scored 60% on security and 40% on trust-minimisation.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each is rewritten from the category's own criteria and weights, as are nine categories' review and comparison standards that no page printed, eight of them another category's; the assistant answers from each category's published promise, inclusion rule and weights; and the build fails when a published sentence states a weight its category's methodology does not carry or reads as another category's.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Re-reading audit row AI-EVAL-001 on 2026-10-10: the check built for it read every weight the site states against the methodology.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-methodology-consistency.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-promise-methodology-alignment.ts",
        "file:tests/category-answer.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0048",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0048",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bill_pay",
        "business_banking",
        "crypto_card",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "crypto_payroll",
        "decentralised_id",
        "depin_networks",
        "gift_cards",
        "incentive_distribution",
        "institutional_custody",
        "key_recovery",
        "launchpads",
        "offramps",
        "onramp",
        "options_vaults",
        "p2p_exchanges",
        "perp_house_vaults",
        "private_credit",
        "seed_backup",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "tokenised_bonds",
        "tokenised_commodities",
        "tokenised_equities",
        "tokenised_funds",
        "tokenised_realestate",
        "tokenised_tbills"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coins.ph",
        "Spritz Finance",
        "Brex",
        "ether.fi Cash",
        "MetaMask Card",
        "Nexo Card",
        "RedotPay Card",
        "N26",
        "Deel",
        "Billions Network",
        "XNET Mobile",
        "Bidali",
        "Streamflow",
        "Gemini Custody",
        "AnchorWatch",
        "Unchained",
        "Bybit Launchpad",
        "Polkastarter",
        "MoonPay",
        "Mercuryo",
        "Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults",
        "Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults",
        "OKX P2P",
        "Peach Bitcoin",
        "Aster ALP",
        "Ostium OLP",
        "Clearpool",
        "Coldbit Steel",
        "Ondo USDY",
        "Backed bTokens fixed income (wind-down)",
        "Etherfuse (Stablebonds)",
        "Matrixdock Gold (XAUm)",
        "Backed xStocks",
        "Dinari dShares",
        "Gemini Tokenized Stocks",
        "Ondo Stocks",
        "WisdomTree Digital Funds",
        "PRYPCO Mint",
        "Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund (JTRSY)",
        "Circle USYC",
        "Franklin Templeton BENJI (FOBXX)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "41 products in 26 categories were offered to readers in countries their own quoted terms exclude or do not serve: among them Coins.ph (Philippines only) and Mercuryo, RedotPay's card and MoonPay's off-ramp in India, Gemini Custody in the UK and the EU after its wind-down, and US-only funds such as WisdomTree and Franklin BENJI outside the United States.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each country the quoted terms exclude is now a restriction the country test reads, and each row whose terms serve only named countries carries them in servedCountries, confirmed by a second model run against the note's exact words; the build fails a restriction or a served country its evidence does not name.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Phase 2 of audit row CT-RANK-011 on 2026-10-10: a reading model run and an adversarial one went through every row whose availability note names a country in an exclusion or exclusive sentence.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved. In India six categories each lose one row; country pages list 23 fewer rows.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-10-own-terms-availability-catalog",
        "methodology:2026.10.7#0"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0047",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0047",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit",
        "Kraken",
        "OKX",
        "Bitso",
        "CoinDCX",
        "Upbit",
        "Mercado Bitcoin",
        "Luno",
        "Bitvavo",
        "Gemini"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Ten exchanges were offered to readers in countries their own quoted terms exclude or do not serve: Bybit in Singapore, Hong Kong and mainland China, Kraken in Japan and Singapore, OKX in India and Malaysia, Bitso in Venezuela; CoinDCX (Indian residents only), Upbit (Korean residents only), Mercado Bitcoin (Brazil only) and Luno (five countries) across their whole region, Bitvavo in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, and Gemini across Asia. The data changelog of 2026-09-30 said CoinDCX serves India only, while the engine still offered it elsewhere in Asia.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every country those terms exclude is now a restriction the country test reads, and a row that serves only named countries carries them in servedCountries, which the country test reads before any region. A test fails the build if a row excludes or serves a country its quoted evidence does not name.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Re-reading audit row CT-RANK-011 on 2026-10-10 against the exchange rows’ own availability notes.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published order moved. In India the exchange shortlist falls from 10 eligible rows to 6, runner-up OKX to Bitstamp; country pages list 20 fewer rows.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-10-own-terms-availability",
        "methodology:2026.10.5#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0046",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0046",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [
        "Nexo",
        "Coinbase",
        "Bitvavo",
        "Bitget",
        "Binance",
        "KuCoin",
        "Gate.io",
        "Relai",
        "Anycoin Direct",
        "Wirex",
        "Plutus",
        "BISON"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The MiCA licence registry behind /mica and the /mica/check pages, a review, five guides, the MiCA hub and the country guides said Nexo holds a MiCA authorisation from CySEC, put Coinbase’s authorisation with BaFin and Bitvavo’s with the DNB, kept six providers transitional after every transitional period had ended, recorded KuCoin, Gate and Relai as unauthorised, and dated most authorisations 30 December 2024. Seven country guides gave the wrong transitional period (Germany 18 months to 30 June 2026; it was 12, to 30 December 2025), and the result text for German readers said Binance held a BaFin licence.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each licensed record names its entities in a dated snapshot of ESMA’s interim register and takes its dates and authorities from them; Nexo, Bitget, Binance, Wirex, Plutus and Anycoin Direct are recorded as not licensed and KuCoin, Gate and Relai as licensed. The copy follows the registry, and the country guides take their transitional periods from ESMA’s list, with Poland’s vetoed implementing act noted.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Correcting the MiCA readiness index against ESMA’s register on 10 October 2026 (CC-2026-0045) showed the registry and the copy contradicting the same register.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed, and no guide changed its picks.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/micaLicenseRegistry.ts",
        "file:src/lib/micaTransitionalPeriods.ts",
        "file:tests/mica-registry-matches-esma.test.ts",
        "file:tests/mica-transitional-periods.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0045",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0045",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-10",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit",
        "OKX",
        "Gemini",
        "Nexo",
        "Coinbase",
        "Bitvavo",
        "Binance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The MiCA readiness index (v1.0, 18 June 2026) scored Bybit as unauthorised although Austria’s FMA had authorised Bybit EU GmbH in May 2025, called OKX’s and Gemini’s authorisations pending when Malta’s MFSA had granted both, and said Nexo passports via CySEC with no Nexo entity in ESMA’s register. Its answers told readers that Crypto.com, OKX and Bybit were still building toward MiCA authorisation.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Version 1.1 scores each exchange’s authorisation against a dated snapshot of ESMA’s interim register (read 10 October 2026), names each entity it relies on in the published dataset, and answers “Is X MiCA-licensed?” from the register. Three rationales were corrected: Coinbase’s authorisation is Luxembourg’s, Bitvavo’s is the AFM’s, and Binance withdrew its Greek application in June 2026.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The master audit compared the index with the verified evidence corpus on 30 September 2026 (SEO-PR-001); ESMA’s register confirmed it on 10 October 2026.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Bybit moved from 10th to 8th (45 to 68) and Nexo from 8th to 10th (65 to 50); OKX rose from 61 to 68 and Gemini from 75 to 79. The leader did not change.",
      "sources": [
        "file:src/lib/micaReadinessIndex.ts",
        "file:data/esma-casps.json",
        "file:tests/mica-index-corrected.test.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0044",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0044",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-07",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-07",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bridges",
        "bug_bounties",
        "cdp_stablecoins",
        "cross_chain_swaps",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "crypto_payroll",
        "decentralised_compute",
        "decentralised_id",
        "decentralised_storage",
        "defi_dashboards",
        "hardware_wallet",
        "indexers",
        "kyc_compliance",
        "l2_chains",
        "layer1_chains",
        "liquid_staking",
        "mev_protection",
        "mpc_wallets",
        "naming_services",
        "offramps",
        "onchain_analytics",
        "onchain_monitoring",
        "prediction_markets",
        "privacy_tools",
        "revoke_tools",
        "rpc_nodes",
        "smart_accounts",
        "tokenised_funds",
        "tokenised_realestate",
        "transaction_simulation",
        "web3_apps",
        "yield_aggregators"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "In 32 categories, among them hardware wallets and layer-2 chains, the provider pages said “No evidence reading date recorded” and “Score evidence: Unknown, no observation on file”, and the score popovers opened no quote, although every published row had been re-read on every criterion with a quote, a source and a reading date (1,210 cells; hardware wallets read on 2 October 2026, layer-2 chains on 1 October). The research had moved into re-read files that the evidence generator did not publish.",
      "whatWeFixed": "A category whose re-reads cover its whole published table now publishes its evidence from them: each cell’s score, quote, source and reading date opens on the provider page and in the score popover. The 11 categories whose re-reads cover only part of their table are not published from them.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A phone check of the live Ledger page on 7 October 2026: its review stamp said “Reviewed 1 October 2026” while its Evidence section said no reading date was recorded.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-10-07-evidence-from-rereads"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0043",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0043",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "hardware_wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Trezor",
        "BitBox02",
        "OneKey",
        "Keystone",
        "Ledger",
        "Coldcard",
        "Tangem",
        "Cypherock X1",
        "Blockstream Jade",
        "CoolWallet"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Several hardware-wallet facts described a sibling model or the brand rather than the device the row prices: BitBox02 carried the Nova's EAL6+ chip, OneKey the Pro's QR air gap, Cypherock an EAL6+ level its own spec table gives as EAL5+, and launch years were the brand's first device. Blockstream Jade was listed as Bitcoin-only although its firmware signs Liquid assets, Tangem's firmware as partly open although Tangem keeps it closed, and the Ledger, Jade, CoolWallet and Cypherock prices were out of date or belonged to another model.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every fact was re-read and quoted for the model the row prices (methodology 2026.10.2): the BitBox02's ATECC608B is uncertified, OneKey's Classic 1S Pure has no air gap, Cypherock's ST31H320 is EAL5+, launch years are each model's first shipment, Jade and Tangem are corrected, and the prices are Ledger $69, Jade Classic $67, CoolWallet Go $69 and Cypherock X1 $99.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The receipts-and-verify workflow for hardware_wallet v2, which graded every row on its priced model for the first time.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, together with the four new criteria shipped in the same version: Trezor stays #1; Tangem falls from #7 to #14 and Cypherock from #6 to #10.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.10.2#1",
        "methodology:2026.10.2#2",
        "methodology:2026.10.2#4"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0042",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0042",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "type": "methodology",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "exchange",
        "wallet",
        "crypto_card",
        "staking",
        "onramp",
        "stablecoins",
        "tax_software",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "bridges",
        "web3_apps",
        "trading_tools"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The fallback list a reader sees when no product serves their country ranked twelve criterion-scored categories on attribute maps their methodology pages no longer publish: it carried its own copy of the scorer dispatch, which never learned about the criterion path.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The fallback list now uses the same objective as the published ranking (scoreObjective), with its liveness guard and the published situational adjustments.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Reading the dispatch while moving l2_chains onto its published criteria (methodology 2026.10.0).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed; only the order of the no-coverage fallback list.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.10.0#8"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0041",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0041-0060#CC-2026-0041",
      "correctedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "loggedAt": "2026-10-01",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "l2_chains"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Scroll",
        "Mantle",
        "Blast",
        "Starknet",
        "Arbitrum Nova",
        "Polygon zkEVM"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Scroll, Mantle and Blast were recorded as EVM-equivalent although their own documentation calls them EVM-compatible; Starknet was counted from a 2021 mainnet that only whitelisted developers could use; and the scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the availability text contained the word \"ethereum\", so Arbitrum Nova's committee (\"…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback\") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data (\"…Ethereum L1 before the sunset\") both scored full marks.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each fact was re-read and quoted (Blast also probed live over RPC), Starknet is dated from its 2022 public opening, and data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading. Arbitrum Nova has in fact posted its data to Ethereum since 31 August 2026, so its score stands on the new evidence; Polygon zkEVM scores 0 as a shut-down chain.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The l2_chains receipts and adversarial-verify workflow for methodology 2026.10.0, which quoted every score for the first time.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, below the #1: Blast fell from #8 to #13 and Mantle from #6 to #12, together with the four new L2BEAT criteria shipped in the same version. Arbitrum One stays #1.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.10.0#2",
        "methodology:2026.10.0#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0040",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0040",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "perp_dex",
        "options_vaults",
        "exchange"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Aster",
        "Vertex Protocol",
        "Drift Protocol",
        "3Jane Options",
        "Stryke SSOV",
        "OKX",
        "Bitso",
        "CoinDCX",
        "Luno"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Four leverage venues were tagged as available in the United States with no source, while their own terms or app geo-blocks exclude US residents (Aster, Vertex, Drift, 3Jane), so a reader who stated the US could be offered a venue they may not use. OKX, Bitso, CoinDCX and Luno were offered in modelled markets their terms exclude or do not serve, and Stryke’s options vaults were ranked as a live product although Stryke sunset them in February 2024.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each region tag was read from the provider’s own terms or geo-block, quoted in its availability note, and re-fetched by a second model run; the excluded modelled countries are carried in restrictedMarkets, and Stryke’s row is recorded as sunset from its own announcement.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The full-coverage audit and WP-05 step 9, which counted leverage rows whose region tag no page sourced (7).",
      "publishedOrder": "Only below the #1: Stryke fell from 45 to 41 in options_vaults. Country pages list 48 fewer rows.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-30-wp05-region-tags"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0039",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0039",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "tokenisation_platforms",
        "lightning_payment_infrastructure"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Obligate",
        "Taurus",
        "InvestaX",
        "Breez SDK",
        "Amboss",
        "Greenlight",
        "Strike",
        "Voltage"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Obligate was ranked #1 among tokenisation platforms with a control-surface score its own pages do not support: the top rung needs a published repository or a deployed contract address, and Obligate names its token standard without linking either. In Lightning payment infrastructure, Breez, Amboss and Greenlight were scored on pricing and status pages that have since been withdrawn or no longer list the service, while Strike and Voltage were under-credited for evidence they already published.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Both categories were re-read from the providers’ own pages on 2026-09-30, every quote re-fetched and matched, every score placed against its ladder by a model run reconciling them adversarially, and the move that changed the tokenisation #1 re-checked by a second run, which upheld it. The scores follow the evidence still published.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled cadence re-read ahead of the categories’ 2026-10-26/27 review dates (RS-10b).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. One #1 changed: tokenisation_platforms (Obligate to Taurus, by one point on the published scale). In lightning_payment_infrastructure the order changed below the unchanged top three and five published scores moved. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published row that moved. lightning_payment_infrastructure: Blink (Galoy) #5 → #4 at 75; Voltage 70 → 73 (#7 → #5); Amboss 75 → 72 (#4 → #6); Strike 60 → 69 (#13 → #7); Blockstream Greenlight 72 → 65 (#6 → #8); Breez SDK 67 → 62 (#8 → #13). tokenisation_platforms: Taurus 80 → 81 (#2 → #1); Obligate 81 → 80 (#1 → #2); InvestaX 68 → 67; Tokeny 64 → 65; Brickken 61 → 62.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-30-rs10b-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0038",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0038",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "enterprise_accounting",
        "lightning_wallets"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Entendre",
        "Misty Breez"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two providers were scored on documentation that no longer exists. Entendre was credited with a published cost-basis method setting, a balance-reconciliation report and a step-by-step NetSuite procedure; after its acquisition by MoonPay the API documentation was replaced and those pages return 404. Misty Breez was credited with inbound Lightning capacity and a priced exit to chain after Breez had announced that the service it relies on is gone and Lightning and on-chain payments can no longer be made in the app.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Both rows were re-read from the providers’ own pages on 2026-09-30, every quote re-fetched and matched verbatim, and every score placed against its ladder by a model run reconciling them adversarially. The scores follow the evidence that is still published, the tagline that repeated Entendre’s old documentation was rewritten, and Misty Breez is marked “unclear” with its wind-down stated in its watchouts.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled cadence re-read ahead of the categories’ 2026-10-26/27 review dates (RS-10a).",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, below the top three: Entendre 76 to 63, Misty Breez 60 to 44. The #1s (Cryptoworth, Blink) are unchanged. Corrected 2026-10-14: the rows the order moved below the top three, at an unchanged score: in enterprise_accounting Cryptio #5 → #4, Wag3s #6 → #5 and Ledgible #7 → #6; in lightning_wallets Cash App #12 → #11 and Primal Wallet #13 → #12.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-30-rs10a-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0037",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0037",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "hardware_wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coldcard",
        "Keystone",
        "NGRAVE"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Three hardware wallets carried a design fact their makers’ own pages no longer support: Coldcard was shown with a clean record after Coinkite disclosed that a July 2026 firmware bug let attackers steal funds; Keystone was credited with an EAL5+ secure element its own spec table does not claim; and NGRAVE was called the only EAL7-certified device when the EAL7 belongs to its operating system. Coin counts, prices and connectivity were also out of date on several rows.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every fact was re-read from the makers’ own pages and adversarially reconciled; the Coldcard incident was re-checked by hand on Coinkite’s security-status page before it was applied. The scores follow from the corrected facts, and the prose that repeated the old claims was rewritten.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled cadence re-read ahead of the category’s 2026-10-20 review date, run for the first time through a structural-facts pipeline built for categories scored from design facts.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, below the top three: Keystone 70 to 63, Coldcard 65 to 50, NGRAVE 59 to 48. The #1 is unchanged. Corrected 2026-10-14: the rows the order moved at an unchanged score: Ledger #5 → #4, Cypherock X1 #7 → #6, Tangem #8 → #7, Blockstream Jade #10 → #8 and SafePal S1 #11 → #9.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-30-rs09b-hardware-wallet-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0036",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0036",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-30",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges",
        "web3_apps",
        "liquid_staking",
        "stablecoin_issuance",
        "token_launch_platforms"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Raydium LaunchLab",
        "Bags",
        "Relay",
        "Jumper",
        "Matcha",
        "Hop Protocol",
        "Synapse",
        "Stargate",
        "Symbiosis"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "30 published criterion scores across the five categories no longer matched what the providers’ own pages, APIs and contracts supported, three of the categories had not been read for 181 days (past the 45-day cadence every methodology page promises), two bridges could not be shown operating as ranked, three typed fee rates had no remaining source, and 76 sentences of pool text stated as current facts that had since changed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against primary sources; every quote was re-fetched and matched, every score placed against its ladder, and each move that could change a top three re-checked by an independent skeptical model run, which refuted one move by the reconciling run (it is not applied). The unsourced rates were removed, the rows not shown operating carry dated watchouts, and the false pool text was corrected.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The build gate on the published review cadence (check-review-cadence-is-kept) carried these three categories as named overdue debt; the other two were scheduled ahead of their 2026-10-19 due date.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. One #1 changed: token_launch_platforms (Bags to Raydium LaunchLab). The order changed in 4 of the 5 categories and 36 published scores moved. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published score in bridges, web3_apps, liquid_staking, stablecoin_issuance and token_launch_platforms was recomputed from the re-read. The rows whose score or rank moved are summarised here, not each named.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-30-rs09-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0035",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0035",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-29",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-29",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "subscriptions",
        "business_banking",
        "wallet",
        "crypto_card",
        "staking",
        "lending_borrowing",
        "token_standards",
        "socialfi",
        "trading_tools",
        "incentive_distribution",
        "key_recovery",
        "restaking",
        "creator_mint_platforms",
        "perp_house_vaults",
        "institutional_execution",
        "onramp",
        "portfolio_tracking",
        "paid_research_seats",
        "institutional_custody",
        "exchange",
        "stablecoins",
        "tax_software",
        "crypto_backed_loans",
        "mining_pools",
        "tokenised_bonds",
        "tokenised_equities"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "AMINA Bank AG",
        "Bank Frick",
        "Meow",
        "Mercury",
        "Circle CCTP",
        "Hyblock",
        "Braiins Pool",
        "Bitcoin Keeper",
        "Absinthe Labs",
        "Coinbase Wallet"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "100 published criterion scores across the twenty-six categories due for re-read no longer matched what the providers’ own pages, filings, registers and contracts supported. One provider had wound down, one had changed its name back, and 333 sentences of pool text stated as current facts that had since changed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against primary sources; every quote was re-fetched and matched, every score placed against its ladder, and each move that could change a #1 re-checked by an independent skeptical model run, which refuted one move by the reconciling run (it is not applied). False pool text was corrected, the wound-down provider dated, and three dead links replaced.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 9–11 October review dates, with a quote-matching pass, a ladder pass and a winner-move verification wherever the #1 could move.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. One #1 changed: business_banking (Bank Frick to AMINA Bank AG). The order changed in 18 of the 26 categories and 106 published scores moved. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published score in subscriptions, business_banking, wallet, crypto_card, staking, lending_borrowing, token_standards, socialfi, trading_tools, incentive_distribution, key_recovery, restaking, creator_mint_platforms, perp_house_vaults, institutional_execution, onramp, portfolio_tracking, paid_research_seats, institutional_custody, exchange, stablecoins, tax_software, crypto_backed_loans, mining_pools, tokenised_bonds and tokenised_equities was recomputed from the re-read. The rows whose score or rank moved are summarised here, not each named.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-29-rs08-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0034",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0034",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-28",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-28",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "cross_chain_messaging",
        "intents",
        "proof_of_personhood",
        "sidechains",
        "relayers",
        "appchains_l3s",
        "liquidity_management",
        "structured_products",
        "carbon_credits",
        "remittances",
        "dev_frameworks",
        "stablecoin_settlement",
        "liquid_lockers",
        "fixed_rate_yield",
        "bill_pay",
        "nft_analytics",
        "automation_keepers"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Exactly Protocol",
        "Pendle",
        "Bitcoin Well",
        "Living Room of Satoshi",
        "Regen Network",
        "Carbonmark",
        "Idena",
        "Self",
        "Hyperlane",
        "Union",
        "Klima Protocol",
        "Cronos"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "90 published criterion scores across the seventeen categories due for re-read no longer matched what the providers’ own pages, filings and contracts supported. Two chains had stopped or been rolled back, and several taglines and watchouts stated as current facts that had since changed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against primary sources; every quote was re-fetched and matched, every score placed against its ladder, and each move that changes a #1 re-checked by independent skeptical model runs. False pool text was corrected and the two sunset chains dated.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 3–6 October review dates, with a quote-matching pass, a ladder pass and a winner-move verification on every category.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Five #1s changed: fixed_rate_yield (Pendle to Exactly Protocol), bill_pay (Living Room of Satoshi to Bitcoin Well), carbon_credits (Carbonmark to Regen Network), proof_of_personhood (Self to Idena) and cross_chain_messaging (Union to Hyperlane). The order changed in 13 of the 17 categories and 90 published scores moved. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published score in cross_chain_messaging, intents, proof_of_personhood, sidechains, relayers, appchains_l3s, liquidity_management, structured_products, carbon_credits, remittances, dev_frameworks, stablecoin_settlement, liquid_lockers, fixed_rate_yield, bill_pay, nft_analytics and automation_keepers was recomputed from the re-read. The rows whose score or rank moved are summarised here, not each named.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-28-rs07-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0033",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0033",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-27",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-27",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "account_abstraction_infra",
        "sentiment_analytics",
        "private_credit",
        "flash_loans",
        "attestations",
        "launchpads",
        "money_market_funds"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "DAO Maker",
        "Fjord Foundry",
        "Sign Protocol",
        "Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)",
        "Candide",
        "Pimlico",
        "CoinList",
        "Maple Finance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "50 published criterion scores across the seven categories due for re-read no longer matched what the providers’ own pages, filings or contracts supported. Several August reads had never loaded the page that decided the score, and several watchouts stated as current facts that had since changed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against primary sources; every quote was re-fetched and matched character for character, and every score was placed against the criterion’s published description. False present-tense statements in the pool text were corrected or re-dated.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 29 September review date, with a quote-matching pass and an independent ladder pass on every category.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Three #1s changed: launchpads (Fjord Foundry to DAO Maker), attestations (Ethereum Attestation Service to Sign Protocol) and account_abstraction_infra (Pimlico to Candide, on the published tie-break). The order changed in 6 of the 7 categories and 39 published scores moved. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published score in account_abstraction_infra, sentiment_analytics, private_credit, flash_loans, attestations, launchpads and money_market_funds was recomputed from the re-read. The rows whose score or rank moved are summarised here, not each named.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-27-rs06-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0032",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0032",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-27",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-27",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "gift_cards",
        "otc_desks",
        "p2p_exchanges",
        "wrapped_assets",
        "screeners",
        "nft_lending",
        "governance_tools",
        "shared_sequencers",
        "rollup_as_a_service",
        "market_data_apis",
        "seed_backup",
        "options_vaults",
        "tokenised_commodities"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "JPEG'd",
        "Bisq",
        "Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults)",
        "NFTfi",
        "Kaiko",
        "Dune API",
        "SOFA.org (Earn and Surge)",
        "Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "78 published criterion scores across the thirteen categories due for re-read no longer matched what the providers’ own pages supported, and nine rows described venues that have since wound down, pivoted or gone quiet. The largest gaps were JPEG’d (11 points), then Bisq, Stryke, NFTfi, Kaiko and Dune (5 each).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against the provider’s own pages or on-chain state; a mechanical pass re-fetched every cited page and matched each quote character for character, and a ladder pass placed each score against the criterion’s published description. Each changed score is set against a verbatim source; pages that could not be read keep their score and are listed as unverified in the row.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 28 September review date, with a quote-matching pass and an independent ladder pass on every category.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. One #1 changed: options_vaults (Typus Finance to SOFA.org, by two weighted points). The order changed in 9 of the 13 categories and 52 published scores moved (corrected 2026-10-14 from 51, a miscount: the diff at its commit moves 52); no category outside the thirteen changed. Corrected 2026-10-14: every published score in gift_cards, otc_desks, p2p_exchanges, wrapped_assets, screeners, nft_lending, governance_tools, shared_sequencers, rollup_as_a_service, market_data_apis, seed_backup, options_vaults and tokenised_commodities was recomputed from the re-read. The rows whose score or rank moved are summarised here, not each named.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-27-rs05-cadence-reread"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0031",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0031",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-16",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-16",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "cdp_stablecoins",
        "data_availability",
        "decentralised_compute",
        "decentralised_id",
        "depin_networks",
        "kyc_compliance",
        "layer1_chains",
        "mpc_wallets",
        "privacy_tools",
        "revoke_tools",
        "yield_aggregators"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Reflexer RAI",
        "Beefy",
        "Unrekt",
        "Aztec",
        "Golem",
        "io.net",
        "Ethereum",
        "Sumsub",
        "Veriff",
        "Sky",
        "Ethena"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "66 published criterion scores across the eleven categories due for re-read did not match what the providers’ own pages supported, and several availability statements quoted no source. The largest gaps were Reflexer RAI (16 points), Beefy and Unrekt (11) and Aztec (10).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every row was re-read against the provider’s own pricing, terms, docs and status feeds, with a second model run re-fetching every quote; each changed score is set against a verbatim source, and eleven availability notes now quote the terms they rest on.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 25 September review date, with an adversarial model run re-fetching every quote.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. One #1 changed on the re-read: kyc_compliance (Veriff to Sumsub). The same release carried dimension scores to tenths (methodology 2026.09.15), which moved two further #1s — smart_contract_audits (Zellic to Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule to CodeVASP) — and the order in 38 of 119 categories.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.15#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.15#1",
        "methodology:2026.09.15#2",
        "methodology:2026.09.15#3",
        "methodology:2026.09.15#4",
        "methodology:2026.09.15#5"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0030",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0030",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-15",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-15",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "smart_accounts",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "offramps",
        "defi_dashboards",
        "onchain_analytics",
        "cross_chain_swaps",
        "naming_services",
        "bug_bounties",
        "transaction_simulation",
        "onchain_monitoring",
        "decentralised_storage",
        "rpc_nodes",
        "indexers",
        "mev_protection"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "LI.FI / Jumper",
        "Rango Exchange",
        "deBridge",
        "Xapo Bank",
        "Wirex",
        "Nansen",
        "Kraken",
        "MoonPay",
        "MetaMask Transaction Shield",
        "Banxa",
        "Alchemy",
        "Revolut",
        "Ormi 0xGraph",
        "GoPlus Security",
        "Goldsky"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "130 published criterion scores across 14 categories did not match what the providers’ own pages supported, several availability statements did not match the providers’ terms, and several prices were ones the vendors no longer publish.",
      "whatWeFixed": "All 105 rows were re-read and each changed score set against a verbatim source; availability now follows each provider’s terms, prices follow the vendors’ current pages, and unsupported pricing and availability text was removed or replaced with quoted text.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 25 September review date, with an adversarial model run re-fetching every quote.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Four #1s changed: smart_accounts (Safe to Squads Protocol), crypto_neobanks (Xapo Bank to Revolut), cross_chain_swaps (Relay to Across) and onchain_monitoring (BlockSec Phalcon to Hypernative); 78 published scores moved, and the order moved in 12 of the 14 categories.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.14#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.14#1",
        "methodology:2026.09.14#2",
        "methodology:2026.09.14#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0029",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0029",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_payroll"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Rise"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The Rise record published a 3% percentage-of-volume fee, read on 2026-08-03. On 2026-09-14 the Rise pricing page showed a $49 per-seat price and no percentage fee.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The rate was removed rather than kept as a number the vendor no longer states; crypto_payroll now has one structured rate.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 2026-09-14 re-read of crypto_payroll ahead of its review date (methodology 2026.09.13).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The crypto_payroll order is unchanged; the category no longer has a comparable pricing basis, so its cost column and cost-based tie factor no longer apply.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-14-rise-volume-fee-no-longer-published"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0028",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0028",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_payroll",
        "simple_buy",
        "smart_contract_audits",
        "defi_insurance",
        "wallet_screening",
        "oracles",
        "block_explorers",
        "prediction_markets",
        "trading_bots",
        "nft_marketplace",
        "yield_vaults",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "tokenised_tbills",
        "tokenised_funds",
        "tokenised_realestate",
        "money_market_funds"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "PayPal Crypto",
        "Revolut",
        "Coinbase USDC rewards",
        "Spiko"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "114 published criterion scores across 15 categories did not match what the providers’ own pages supported, and several availability statements did not match the providers’ terms.",
      "whatWeFixed": "All 122 rows were re-read and each changed score set against a verbatim source; availability now follows each provider’s terms, and unsupported pricing and availability text was removed or replaced with quoted text.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "A scheduled re-read ahead of the 25 September review date, with an adversarial model run re-fetching every quote.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Four #1s changed: simple_buy (Relai to Strike), stablecoin_yield (Ondo USDY to Spiko), smart_contract_audits (Certora to Zellic) and money_market_funds (Fidelity Treasury Digital Fund to Spiko US T-Bills Money Market Fund); scores moved in 16 categories.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.13#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.13#1",
        "methodology:2026.09.13#2"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0027",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0027",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Personalised dimension weights were rounded to one decimal each, which changed the ratio between dimensions the reader had not touched: a trust priority turned objectiveFit and quantitative 30:18 into 27.4:16.5.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Personalised weights are no longer rounded, so a stated priority can no longer reorder rows on criteria nobody re-weighted.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The decision-board-reweight test (commit 64e82c02).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. Published weights are whole numbers, so no published order or score changed from this fix.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.12#2"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0026",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0026",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "/methodology presented four named bodies, each \"joined 2026-01-01\", as the people behind every score, and the methodology changelog named two of them as the approver of published versions. None of them existed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The roster now lists the people who exist and the build scripts that run, and every approver in the changelog and this log resolves to a person (owner decision O-07).",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-10.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The plan records W1-10 as not moving any ranking.",
      "sources": [
        "file:scripts/check-roster-is-real.ts",
        "file:tests/roster-is-real.test.ts",
        "file:docs/path-to-ten.md"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0025",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0025",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "/why-trust-us, /editorial-policy, /affiliate-disclosure, /stats and /performance stated things nothing on the site did, among them corrections \"within 24 hours\", a quarterly accuracy report, a public archive, \"Effective: January 2024\" and \"Methodology version v1.0\".",
      "whatWeFixed": "The five pages were rewritten from engine facts, and the translated copies that kept the old claims were deleted so the corrected English renders in every locale.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-09.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The plan records W1-09 as not moving any ranking.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/trust-claims-have-basis.test.ts",
        "file:docs/path-to-ten.md"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0024",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0024",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Ten /recommended guides printed a hand-typed \"#1\", answered their question with \"Editor’s pick\", sent the typed order to Google as ItemList positions and stamped it as uninfluenced by affiliate economics, with rank-1 picks that included providers holding a pending partner programme.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The guides dropped typed ranks, ItemList positions, \"#1\" and \"Editor’s pick\", lead with the published #1 line and list options unnumbered; the independence stamp renders only over lists in published order (commit 9aaa7d45).",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-06 (refusal R6).",
      "publishedOrder": "The published ranking did not move; the guides no longer print an order of their own.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/recommended-guides-follow-published-order.test.ts",
        "file:scripts/check-editorial-no-shadow-ranking.ts"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0023",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0023",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "hardware_wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Ledger"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "/hardware-wallets listed Ledger first and sent that order to Google as \"Best Hardware Wallets 2026\", while Ledger was the only live paying programme and sixth in the published hardware_wallet ranking.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The list, its ItemList and each use case’s options follow the published score, and the page no longer claims enforced independence for an editorial list (commit c321fbc8).",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-06 (refusal R6).",
      "publishedOrder": "The published ranking did not move; the page’s list now follows it.",
      "sources": [
        "file:tests/hub-lists-follow-published-order.test.ts",
        "file:docs/path-to-ten.md"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0022",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0022",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "rankings.json said for every tie that the published criteria did not separate the two rows and named pricing and evidence depth as the deciders; the criterion scores differed in 18 of the 20 ties, and the evidence-depth factor no longer existed.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each tie note is computed from the two rows, names its kind, both unrounded weighted criterion averages and the row the criteria alone prefer, and formula.tieBreakChain publishes the engine’s tie-break keys.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-12.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No order or score changed.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.11#5"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0021",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0021-0040#CC-2026-0021",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "methodology",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "formula.step2_absoluteScore in rankings.json still described the removed \"<= 20 ? round(40 + weightedTotal)\" branch, not the continuous transform the engine has run since commit af882424.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The file states the transform the engine runs and publishes engineMethodologyVersion and a per-category specVersion.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-11.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No order or score changed; no published row had reached the removed branch.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.11#4"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0020",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0020",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [
        "Binance"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "/api/agent-query, /assistant and /api/v1/recommend ranked from typed card fees, spreads, APRs and twelve typed security scores, and returned Binance as #1 for Germany, where the engine excludes Binance.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The pick is the #1 of rankings.json for the category the question maps to; a stated country removes only rows the engine excludes, and responses state no fee, spread or security score.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-16.",
      "publishedOrder": "Not on chainchoice.io: no published or wizard order changed. The API now returns the published order (exchange: binance to bybit_exchange in its fixtures).",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.11#2",
        "methodology:2026.09.11#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0019",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0019",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bug_bounties",
        "carbon_credits",
        "cross_chain_messaging",
        "flash_loans",
        "indexers",
        "institutional_custody",
        "layer1_chains",
        "perp_house_vaults",
        "prediction_markets",
        "shared_sequencers",
        "simple_buy",
        "smart_accounts",
        "stablecoin_settlement",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "tax_software",
        "token_launch_platforms",
        "tokenised_commodities"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Find My Best called a lead \"decisive\" or \"strong\" when the top two printed the same score, or when the #1 was one move from losing first place in the published robustness sweep.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Such leads are capped at \"moderate\", and the results page reads \"How close was this call?\" from the recomputed sweep instead of a linear estimate.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The comparison audit behind docs/path-to-ten.md, programme W1-05.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No order, score or eligibility changed; 59 personalised cases changed their confidence label.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.11#0"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0018",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0018",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "dex",
        "perp_dex",
        "dex_aggregator"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Drift",
        "Odos",
        "Vertex",
        "Synthetix Perps",
        "Matcha",
        "CowSwap",
        "GMX",
        "Hyperliquid",
        "Jupiter Perps",
        "Curve"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Drift (paused since 1 April 2026) and Odos (shut down 27 July 2026) were still ranked, the Synthetix Perps record described the retired debt-pool product, and 69 structural facts across dex, perp_dex and dex_aggregator no longer matched their sources.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each scored fact was re-read from the protocol’s own docs, terms, audit pages, on-chain calls or DefiLlama, and only verified values were applied.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The 36 rows were past the 45-day review cadence; an adversarial model run re-fetched every source.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. dex_aggregator’s #1 changed from CowSwap to Matcha; Synthetix Perps and Drift fell to the floor of perp_dex (Hyperliquid 70 to 62, GMX 65 to 60, Jupiter Perps 67 to 60); Curve fell 54 to 49 in dex.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.10#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.10#1",
        "methodology:2026.09.10#2",
        "methodology:2026.09.10#3",
        "methodology:2026.09.10#4",
        "methodology:2026.09.10#5"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0017",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0017",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "perp_dex",
        "perp_house_vaults"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Gains Network (gTrade)",
        "GMX",
        "GMX GM pools",
        "Jupiter Perps",
        "Helix",
        "Paradex",
        "Lighter",
        "Hyperliquid"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Seven perp venues and GMX’s GM pools were shown as available to US readers, and some to Canadian and UK readers, although each venue’s own terms restrict those markets.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each record quotes its terms page with the date the page states, names the restricted countries this site can match and drops the US tag.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "The follow-up to audit finding G-10 (methodology 2026.09.8): each venue’s terms were rendered and read on 2026-09-13.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The published ranking is unchanged in all 119 categories; one golden case changed its winner (perp_house_vaults for a US reader).",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.9#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.9#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0016",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0016",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "perp_dex"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "dYdX"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "dYdX was shown as available to readers in the United States and the United Kingdom, while dYdX’s help centre lists the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom as restricted jurisdictions.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The record quotes that page, names those three markets as restricted and drops the US tag.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Audit finding G-10; no golden case covered a US or UK perp_dex reader (commit 9f8ac682).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. The published ranking is unchanged in all 119 categories; personalised perp_dex runs for US, UK and Canadian readers no longer rank dYdX.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.8#0"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0015",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0015",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-13",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "l2_chains"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Blast",
        "Manta Pacific"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Blast and Manta Pacific were recorded as optimistic rollups; L2BEAT lists both under \"Other\" with State Validation \"None\", so the fraud-proof guarantee \"optimistic\" implies does not exist.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Both carry rollupType no_proof_system, with taglines, descriptions and pricing notes rewritten to L2BEAT’s classification.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "check-review-cadence-is-kept failed on 2026-09-13 because l2_chains evidence had crossed the 45-day cadence, and the re-read against L2BEAT disagreed on these two.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. rankings.json is unchanged in every category; one personalised case moved (Blast 72 to 69, still 8th).",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.7#0"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0014",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0014",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-11",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bridges",
        "trading_bots"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The tie-break gave a row an extra point for \"strong evidence confidence\", a value derived from the availability score, so availability decided a tie it had already been weighed into, under a name that said evidence.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The factor was removed; the tie-break no longer reads availability.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "An internal audit of the tie-break (commit 547c953f); the changelog entry does not record it.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. 0 of 119 categories changed published order or any score; personalised runs in bridges and trading_bots reordered rows already tied on score.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.6#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.6#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0013",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0013",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-10",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "methodology",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "all"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Every category promised a 30-day review cadence the work did not keep: oldest evidence ran to a median of 35 days, and 22 categories were overdue on 2026-09-10.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The published cadence is 45 days, and the overdue ceiling in the build fell from 7 to 3. Nothing was re-dated.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "check-review-cadence-is-kept reported 22 overdue categories on 2026-09-10 with nothing changed but the clock.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No category changed order and no score moved.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.5#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.5#2"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0012",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0012",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-09",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "liquidity_management"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Kodiak Islands",
        "Steer Protocol Smart Pools",
        "ICHI",
        "Arrakis"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "liquidity_management published no cost basis, because its cost model charged a taker fee none of its products charge, while three of its records (Kodiak Islands, Steer and ICHI) already carried a rate in a verified note that the engine never read.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The category is priced on its own model, which charges the manager’s cut against the swap fees a position earns (Steer: $75 a year on a $10,000 position at 5% fee yield, not $1,500).",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Among three rows tied at 66, rank 4 changed from Arrakis to ICHI, with Kodiak at 5 and Arrakis at 6; no score moved.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-09-liquidity-management-reads-its-own-fees"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0011",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0011",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-09",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "stale_data",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "trading_bots"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Cryptohopper",
        "Bitsgap",
        "HaasOnline",
        "3Commas",
        "Coinrule"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Cryptohopper, Bitsgap and HaasOnline had raised their subscriptions while the records showed the old prices, Cryptohopper’s paper-trading free tier did not exist, Bitsgap’s real free plan was described as a trial, and 3Commas was said to publish no annual price.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Eight of nine records were re-read against the pages they cite. Cryptohopper, Bitsgap and HaasOnline had raised their prices and were corrected, 3Commas and Coinrule got smaller corrections, and Gunbot, Hummingbot and Freqtrade were confirmed unchanged. Pionex kept its old date because its citation no longer states its rate.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "trading_bots was 117 days past its published review cadence and was re-read.",
      "publishedOrder": "No. No published score or rank changed in any category; three personalised cases moved between rows tied on score.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-09-trading-bots-re-read"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0010",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0010",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-09",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "liquid_staking",
        "yield_vaults"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Sky Savings Rate (sUSDS)",
        "Ethena (sUSDe)",
        "Ondo USDY",
        "PayPal PYUSD Rewards",
        "Lido",
        "Rocket Pool",
        "Coinbase Staking"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Four yields were filed as fees, so the cost column charged readers $1,126 to $1,280 a year of their own income, and thirteen cuts of rewards were charged against principal (Lido $3,200 a year instead of $160).",
      "whatWeFixed": "Each record sits in the field its verified note describes: a commission on rewards, a performance fee, or a gross yield that is never a cost basis.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published score or rank moved. One published flag changed: stablecoin_yield.leaderSurvivesOnePointChange, true to false.",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-09-a-yield-is-not-a-fee"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0009",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0009",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-09",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "hardware_wallet"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Coldcard",
        "Ledger",
        "Cypherock X1",
        "Tangem"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Two score ties in hardware_wallet (Coldcard and Ledger at 67, Cypherock X1 and Tangem at 62) were ordered on a pricing basis that mixed euros and dollars: BitBox’s €149 sat in a field read as US dollars, so €149 and $149 counted as the same price. BitBox itself was not in either tie.",
      "whatWeFixed": "A pricing basis that carries more than one currency may still display but no longer decides a tie.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. In hardware_wallet two tied pairs swapped places (Ledger and Coldcard at 67, Tangem and Cypherock X1 at 62); no score changed, and BitBox did not move.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.4#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.4#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0008",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0008",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-07",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bridges",
        "stablecoins"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Everclear (formerly Connext)",
        "USDS (Sky)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "Everclear published a bridge fee of 0 and USDS a spread of 0, while each record’s own verification note said the figure could not be established.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Neither publishes a value on that basis and both render \"not published on this basis\"; twelve true zeros now name the costs they exclude.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes, in bridges: deBridge 56 to 59 and rank 9 to 8, Everclear 15 to 18, six rows moved. The published stablecoins order did not change. Corrected 2026-10-14: the other four rows that moved, at an unchanged score: Orbiter Finance #8 → #9 (59), Squid Router #16 → #15, Hop Protocol #17 → #16 and Symbiosis #18 → #17 (41 each).",
      "sources": [
        "data:2026-09-07-unknown-is-not-zero"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0007",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0007",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-06",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "bill_pay",
        "business_banking",
        "crypto_card",
        "crypto_neobanks",
        "crypto_payroll",
        "defi_insurance",
        "depin_networks",
        "exchange",
        "gift_cards",
        "institutional_custody",
        "institutional_execution",
        "key_recovery",
        "lightning_wallets",
        "money_market_funds",
        "offramps",
        "onramp",
        "paid_research_seats",
        "payment_gateway",
        "perp_house_vaults",
        "remittances",
        "restaking",
        "simple_buy",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "subscriptions",
        "tokenised_bonds",
        "tokenised_equities",
        "tokenised_funds",
        "tokenised_realestate",
        "tokenised_tbills"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "For 33 of the 60 questionnaire countries the eligibility gate treated \"not mapped\" as eligible, so rows whose own market list omits the reader’s region were ranked for them; a restriction sentence was also matched as a substring, so \"Niger\" matched \"Nigeria\".",
      "whatWeFixed": "The gate reads the decision layer’s country verdict for every questionnaire country before scoring, and restriction sentences are matched word-bounded.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "No published ranking changed (they are untouched by construction); 807 of 6,959 personalised country runs changed and 73 changed leader.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.3#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.3#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0006",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0006",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-02",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "methodology",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "all"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "rankings.json published the base weights while each category was scored on re-weighted profiles, so only 98 of 934 products could be rebuilt from the file, and the gate certifying reconstruction never used the weights it read.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The file publishes the weight profile each category was scored with, and the gate rebuilds the weighted total and fails on a tampered, shifted or missing weight.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Found while measuring profileFit for the same methodology version; tampering with a published weight then showed the gate still passed (commit cb95c3fc).",
      "publishedOrder": "Not recorded for this fix; all 934 products now reconstruct exactly.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.2#5",
        "methodology:2026.09.2#6"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0005",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0005",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-02",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "all"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "A stated priority for support raised profileFit, a dimension that could not move a result.",
      "whatWeFixed": "It raises frictionFit, where getting started and getting help are scored.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Found while measuring profileFit for the same methodology version (commit cb95c3fc).",
      "publishedOrder": "Not recorded for this fix.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.2#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0004",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0004",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-02",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "material",
      "categories": [
        "all"
      ],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "The display rescale divided by a hardcoded 106 while the weights summed to 86, so published scores did not span the achievable range.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The divisor is derived from the weights.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Found while measuring profileFit for the same methodology version (commit cb95c3fc).",
      "publishedOrder": "No. Every score rose by 0 to 5 points, median 4; no category changed order or leader.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.2#4"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0003",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0003",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-02",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "scoring",
      "severity": "high",
      "categories": [
        "bill_pay",
        "stablecoin_yield",
        "tokenised_tbills",
        "tokenised_funds"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Swapin (SwapinPay)",
        "Ethena (sUSDe)"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "With no country stated, the availability check matched an empty string against every market, which excluded bill_pay/swapin and stablecoin_yield/ethena_susde from every published ranking and awarded a primary-market bonus for a populated field.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The country match requires a stated country; both products returned and the catalog published 934 scored products, up from 932.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Yes. Two categories changed leader (tokenised_tbills, tokenised_funds) and six reordered below the top.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.1#0",
        "methodology:2026.09.1#1"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0002",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0002",
      "correctedAt": "2026-09-01",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [],
      "providers": [],
      "whatWasWrong": "Eighteen surfaces advertised a methodology version that was never published: the year and month of the April release, without its patch number.",
      "whatWeFixed": "Every surface derives its version stamp from the methodology changelog.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Not recorded for this fix; the same version removed sentiment from the score, which reordered 8 of 114 categories.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.09.0#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    },
    {
      "id": "CC-2026-0001",
      "url": "https://chainchoice.io/methodology/corrections/archive/2026-0001-0020#CC-2026-0001",
      "correctedAt": "2026-04-27",
      "loggedAt": "2026-09-14",
      "type": "factual",
      "severity": "minor",
      "categories": [
        "crypto_card"
      ],
      "providers": [
        "Bybit Card"
      ],
      "whatWasWrong": "The Bybit Card website URL carried a hardcoded /en-US/ path.",
      "whatWeFixed": "The path was removed.",
      "howWeCaughtIt": "Not recorded in the changelog entry.",
      "publishedOrder": "Not recorded.",
      "sources": [
        "methodology:2026.04.0#3"
      ],
      "approvedBy": "mathias-siemonsmeier"
    }
  ]
}