Historical report from the earlier edition. Counts and outstanding tasks below describe that release. See the current completion record and source register.
This edition does not yet warrant being presented as a completed, world-scale “10/10” study. The review identified substantive corrections as well as editorial gaps. The revised package is a bounded comparative study with an explicit proposal to end imprisonment for words. Its remaining research, legal and publication tasks are specified below.
The review is dated 30 September 2026. It covers both main articles, the supporting documents, fourteen records in each language, twenty-eight source entries, thirteen connections to earlier beforeword work and the links. The corpus still comprises seventeen judicial documents. Parallel language versions do not increase that count.
Applying the boundary to the study itself
No word is exempt from the boundary between a written form and what it names. The rule applies to an accusation, a protective judgment, the abolition proposal and this review. No reviewed formulation makes a term such as threat, act, court or proved an automatic exemption. Several of the study's own terms nevertheless claimed more than their stated grounds supplied: finding, premise, useful, original and freedom. The corrections address those uses.
The test is more demanding than adding a list of unprivileged words. A material claim needs an identified attribution, support and a clear account of what an objection would change. The sentence saying that the boundary has been maintained is subject to the same requirement. This report records the scope and result of the examination; its title supplies no guarantee against every further defect.
The political demand remains broad: remove imprisonment for words, including where the accusatory interpretation is supported. It is not derived automatically from the nonidentity of writing and what it names. Completing the independent normative case for that demand is the central unresolved task.
Corrections made
| Area | Change and reason |
|---|---|
| The abolition argument | The desired outcome is now stated as a normative demand. Calling it a premise no longer appears to supply an additional reason. Requiring separate justification for custody does not, by itself, defeat every possible justification. |
| Freedom and protection | The constructed example now asks who must change behaviour and who bears failure of a proposed measure. Neither participant's restrictions disappear under the label protection. |
| Revision conditions | Methodological rules, local assertions and the normative proposal have different revision conditions. An execution record changes the execution entry; it does not refute the distinction between a decision and its implementation. |
| The claimed contribution | An unsupported comparative claim about usefulness has been removed. Open questions are distinguished from completed comparisons. Dmitriyevskiy and Cobban now include specific local findings. |
| Reproduction level | The English Dmitriyevskiy passage is a judicial reproduction, and its Russian rendering is not called the original. Momberg refers to recordings and testimony as reproduced in a judgment, without claiming that the original transcript was obtained. |
| Sanctions and criteria | Stomakhin now includes the omitted concurrent journalism ban. Qwelane's statutory invalidity and costs are described more precisely. Momberg's criterion and the relevant Chambers and Cobban locations are clarified in the records. |
| Indian material | The PUCL entry identifies police registration of complaints or cases. Shreya specifies s79(3)(b). Arup's statement about Shreya is limited to the judgment examined, and its signed order is separated from subsequent ROP blocks. |
| Academic metadata | Austin's 1962 publication date belongs to the original work; the date of the retrieved anthology extract remains unestablished. Three selected works are not represented as a systematic review. |
| Source access | The Counterman court-host PDF was obtained. The four Kimel/Canese court PDFs match the read CEJIL copies byte for byte. The live Human page is distinguished from the archived version used in the connection map. |
| Public and language access | The package adds a complete English guide, FAQ, fourteen-task comparison table and open-issues register. A working scope identifies what imprisonment for words includes; the missing public response route is stated explicitly. |
Use the source ledger, English records, Russian records and earlier-work map to examine the specific passages. A correction entry reports a document change. It does not certify an assertion by naming it corrected.
What was examined
Each source entry was compared for document identity, date, language, reproduction level and the locations supporting the package's claims. Judicial checks concerned selected quotations, criteria, dispositions and the difference between a sentence ordered and time served. The British judgments and Counterman's majority opinion from the court-host PDF were read in full again. For other large decisions, the renewed reading targeted the passages used in the study. This is not described as a fresh line-by-line reading of every large source file.
A link check asks whether an address responds. Reading the returned material asks a different question; deciding what it supports asks another. The link log keeps observed responses visible. Indian Kanoon and Justia restricted direct automated requests, while their judicial reproductions remained readable through the other retrieval channel. Those responses are not reported as proof of broken links.
All thirteen linked beforeword pages were retrieved directly. Twelve HTML files matched the archive byte for byte. Human differed, so the map identifies its archived version as the basis of that connection. The version-access record retains URLs, dates and hashes for selected retrieved files. Hashes permit comparisons of bytes, not certification of the assertions in a document.
Preparation and internal review used a language model, source reading and programmatic file comparison. Parallel internal checks are not independent external peer review. Agreement between the language editions is not a substitute for independent language editing.
What remains necessary
A developed answer to the hard normative cases. The proposal must explain why custody should be removed even where a classification is supported, including recurrent coercion and communications associated with violence. It must specify restrictions for each participant, the response when measures fail, and reasons for the proposed allocation. The case corpus does not demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives.
More completed inferential analysis. Several records still formulate a precise question rather than trace every disputed connection to a completed finding. Those entries need further analysis where the conclusion depends on it. Adding jurisdictions does not perform that work.
The missing material that matters to particular claims. Selected Russian originals, initial expert assessments and domestic decisions, some original digital exhibits, execution records and later procedural histories remain outside the obtained corpus. A conclusion depending on them must retain its stated reproduction-level limit.
A literature review with a declared search method. The three initial works help frame the inquiry. They cannot establish historical originality, completeness of objections or the approach's position among competing methods. Search conditions, inclusion and exclusion reasons, and adverse arguments need their own record.
External assessment and a concrete reform route. The dossier is prepared, but jurisdiction-specific responses and independent Russian and English editing have not been obtained. A legislative proposal needs a selected jurisdiction, applicable current provisions, exact proposed changes and an identified procedure. A comparative article does not supply all of those by itself.
An operational public release. The edition still needs public locations, a functioning response channel, an identified editorial contact and an accessible correction history. A person's name is not supplied without an agreed attribution. Terms for reusing the project's text and third-party material also need to be stated before open distribution. This review did not change the public website or send external messages.
The revised package can be presented for scrutiny with its scope and open questions intact. Neither document counts nor accessible links establish worldwide recognition, completion of the abolition programme or a ten-out-of-ten rating.
beforeword · Repeated review edition · 30 September 2026