Supporting methodology and editorial history

Article: OpenSanctions in 8DB: follow the ownership, then the missing evidence

Retained October 9, 2026 from the article at source c04aea4. These passages preserve the original scope, methodology and revision history behind the commercial summary. They are not new test results. Original source references remain in the article.

The list check needed tightening too. An exact registration-number non-match tells us that the tested identifier was not found in the checked file. A listed entity can lack that identifier. We found a concrete example in the UK entry for the parent itself. Our earlier wording, including “absent from every list” and “zero false positives,” exceeded that evidence.[3]

The rerun preserved the fourteen-company chronology, corrected the historical subsidiary interpretation, and turned unresolved gaps into named collection tasks. Those are concrete changes to the analysis. We have not measured a reduction in analyst time or established a new evasion network.

Revision note, September 17, 2026: this article replaces the earlier network-wide claims with one worked ownership case and corrects the interpretation of the seventeen-company cohort. The companion technical article explains how a conclusion changes when its evidence changes.