# Approved corrections — apply these on the website database Sofia's decision on each, taken one by one. Nothing here has been applied automatically. Evidence for every item is in `research-results.json` and `fact-check-findings.json`. --- ## Spreadsheet fixes (not the database) **Row 259** — `URL` is `https://archive.is/El9EI`, which is the Kharkiv snapshot. That same link correctly sits on row 262 (Kharkiv) and on DB id 258 (Kharkiv). The article saved in row 259 is the Europe 1 Val-de-Marne story, and DB id 362 already holds the correct Europe 1 URL. So the database is right and this row's URL is the mispaste. → **Fix or clear the URL on row 259. Leave DB id 258 alone.** **Row 18** — `Scenario` says `Armed Robbery in Public Space`. The article says the attack happened inside the victims' own apartment in the Busca neighbourhood of Toulouse. DB id 266 already says `Home Invasion`, which is closer. → **Fix the sheet.** **Row 252** — `URL` points to `cryptonews.com/.../french-crypto-trader-kidnapped-near-paris`, a different case in France. The article saved in that row is a Phuket robbery in Thailand. Trusting this URL would have filed the article under DB id 350. → **Re-find the correct source.** This case is also absent from the database entirely; see `cases-missing-from-database.json`. --- ## DB id 307 — Salford, October 2023 `description` duplicates id 354 (incident 1, the door knock) and `notes` describes incident 2. Date, location, scenario and flags already fit incident 4. Confirmed by elimination: five sheet rows, five DB records, four pairs settled independently. → **Rewrite to incident 4, quoting the source in notes:** > "Days later, the gang turned up at the victim's house again, demanding more money. They > took him to Egret Drive, the address he was later found at by police, and placed a bag > over his head." --- ## DB id 321 — Recife, 21 March 2025 `victim` reads `Crypto manager`, but the person kidnapped was his mother. The record already contradicts itself: the description reads "Crypto manager surveilled, mother kidnapped, ransomed for 5 BTC". → **Change `victim` to the mother.** --- ## DB id 456 — Serra, Espírito Santo, 11 June 2026 **Drug-trafficking network claim — DELETE.** The summary states the investigation "led to broader operation against a drug trafficking and money laundering network in Espírito Santo and Bahia". No source makes this claim. It traces to an unrelated teaser headline sitting inside the Sim Notícias page, about a street sweeper in a different case. **Pistol-whipping — DELETE, but keep `violence_torture` = 1.** No source contains "coronhada". Serra Noticiário, sourced to the police who processed him, says his only injuries were "escoriações causadas pela queda durante a fuga". The flag stays on the basis of one early A Tribuna line attributed to unnamed residents: "A vítima teria tentado resistir ao sequestro, mas foi agredida." Record that as the basis, alongside the police account of his injuries. **Vehicle count — CORRECT to two attacker vehicles.** Keep the eight-suspect figure, which the victim's own account supports. Drop the third vehicle and the invented per-attacker role breakdown. Lt. Tavares: "conseguimos identificar dois carros que emparelharam com a Porsche, um HB20 branco e um Celta prata." Also record: **both attacker vehicles carry São Paulo plates registered to the same owner** (Serra Noticiário) — relevant to whether an attack was organised or opportunistic. **"as of June 16, 2026" — REMOVE the date, keep the rest.** No article dated 16 June or later exists; every source found is dated 11 or 12 June. The count stands as "one arrested, seven at large", with no date attached. --- ## Detention flag (`kidnappings`) — accepted 2026-09-06 Rule: README-START-HERE.md, "Definitions". The field is the detention flag; rename it `detention` on the website. Evidence per case: merge-output/detention-flag-review.md. → **Set `kidnappings` to 1 on these records:** 4, 19, 25, 28, 29, 41, 43, 46, 63, 64, 82, 139, 143, 147, 152, 167, 169, 171, 180, 181, 182, 183, 200, 209, 229, 253, 301, 353, 380, 419. Rule clarified the same day: detention used on anyone (guards, staff, a concierge, a relative) to force submission or execute the theft counts as 1, whether or not the record's named victim was present. Case 301 (guards tied up) is therefore in the list above. Still open, not yet decided: the 1-to-0 proposals (124, 242, 273, 413, 422, 423, and nulls 354, 355) and the two CHECK items (215, 298).