Virtual Pages - Source Excerpt 31
Summary
This source excerpt preserves a bounded section of 2IA.org/wp-content/themes/twoia-intelligence/inc/virtual-pages.php so readers can inspect the evidence without opening the full source file.
**Source path:** 2IA.org/wp-content/themes/twoia-intelligence/inc/virtual-pages.php
__( 'Minimization begins before writing. It asks what the public needs to know, whose details are not necessary, and whether the same accountability point can be made with less exposure.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'This is especially important for surveillance, false positives, public-source research, protest, identity, trauma, and sensitive records. Raw detail can feel authoritative while quietly harming people who are not the accountable power in the story.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'evidence' => array(
__( 'A stated public-interest claim that explains why any personal detail is necessary.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Redaction notes for bystanders, minors, victims, private people, addresses, medical details, and unrelated identifiers.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Sensitivity labels for material that should not be copied casually.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'A check that screenshots, filenames, captions, metadata, and alt text do not leak what the article removed.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'use' => array(
__( 'Write the claim, then remove every detail that does not help prove it.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Prefer institutional names, record systems, policies, contracts, and aggregate facts over private-person exposure.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Document why any retained personal detail is essential and lawful.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'review_questions' => array(
__( 'Who could be harmed by this detail?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Can the public-interest point survive without it?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Have all copies of the detail been removed from media, excerpts, and metadata?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'publication_boundary' => __( 'Do not turn people into evidence props. If a detail is not needed for accountability, remove it or keep it internal.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'ai-assistance-has-a-ledger' => array(
'summary' => __( 'The rule for using AI as an editorial assistant while keeping human responsibility, source review, and uncertainty visible.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
'full_context' => array(
__( 'The reports treat AI as useful but risky: it can summarize and cluster, but it can also hallucinate, flatten uncertainty, omit caveats, and sound certain while being wrong. 2IA can use AI only inside a human-owned review process.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'An AI-use ledger helps readers and editors understand what the model did and did not do. It also prevents model output from laundering weak sources into polished authority.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'evidence' => array(
__( 'Task performed by AI: sorting, summarization, comparison, drafting, translation support, or duplicate detection.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Human reviewer responsible for the final claim and the source checks performed.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Known AI risks in the piece: hallucination, missing context, bias, translation uncertainty, or synthetic-media uncertainty.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Source classes that independently support the final text.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'use' => array(
__( 'Use AI to accelerate review, not to replace evidence.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Disclose meaningful AI assistance where it affects drafting, sorting, or interpretation.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Re-check names, dates, quotations, legal references, and conclusions against sources.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'review_questions' => array(
__( 'What did the model do, and what did a human verify?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Could the model have invented, overcompressed, or overconfidently framed a point?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Does each claim still stand without the model voice?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'publication_boundary' => __( 'Do not publish AI-generated certainty as fact. AI output must remain subordinate to source evidence and human editorial responsibility.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'right-of-reply' => array(
'summary' => __( 'A fairness standard for giving named institutions or people a practical chance to respond to material claims when appropriate.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
'full_context' => array(
__( 'Right of reply is not permission for powerful actors to veto public-interest reporting. It is a method for improving accuracy, narrowing claims, catching missing context, and showing readers whether a subject answered the core question.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'The policy matters most when a page makes material claims about a named organization, vendor, public office, campaign, or person. A documented reply path makes the archive stronger and harder to dismiss as one-sided heat.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'evidence' => array(
__( 'The exact claim offered for response and the public-interest reason it matters.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Contact route used, date sent, deadline, and any response or nonresponse.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'What changed because of the response: correction, clarification, dispute note, or no change.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Limits on reply handling when contact would create risk, harassment, or needless exposure.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'use' => array(
__( 'Use right of reply for material claims, not every general criticism or public-policy position.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Summarize responses fairly and keep the publication conclusion distinct from the subject response.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Record when practical reply was not possible and why.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'review_questions' => array(
__( 'Who is named or clearly identifiable in the claim?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Would their response likely confirm, narrow, dispute, or correct the claim?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'How will readers see what changed after reply?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'publication_boundary' => __( 'Do not let right of reply become retaliation theater, intimidation, or delay without public-interest reason. Fairness serves accuracy, not suppression.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'visible-correction-path' => array(
'summary' => __( 'A full correction-route standard for making public memory repairable, dated, and understandable.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
'full_context' => array(
__( 'A public intelligence site earns trust by making repair visible. Corrections should identify the affected page, what changed, why it changed, when it changed, and whether the conclusion changed.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'The correction path also covers privacy repair. If unnecessary personal detail was published, the repair should remove the detail and consider whether cached excerpts, media metadata, screenshots, or related pages need attention.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'evidence' => array(
__( 'Correction request with page, sentence, source issue, proposed fix, and public reason.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Reviewer decision: correction, update, clarification, dispute note, privacy repair, or no change.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Date-stamped correction log entry and downstream pages or media checked.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Right-of-reply record when a named subject provides material context.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'use' => array(
__( 'Make the correction route easy to find from trust pages and relevant articles.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Treat meaningful corrections as public improvements, not embarrassment.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Preserve the old claim internally when needed to explain what changed.', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),
'review_questions' => array(
__( 'Is this a factual error, missing context, stale claim, privacy issue, or disputed interpretation?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'Does the correction affect the headline, summary, conclusion, tags, or related pages?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
__( 'How will readers know the archive improved?', 'two-identities-anonymous' ),
),