Read this before anything else
Nobody is on this list who did not ask to be on it. We do not go looking for people, we are not sent lists of people, and there is no page here where you can look somebody else up. The only way onto it is to ask us yourself, about your own work.
This is not a background check and we will not sell it as one. It is the opposite shape: you tell us what you say about yourself, you tell us where it is written down, and we go and see whether the words are really there.
Nothing here has been sold and there is no price on this page. The rail at the top says “Not for sale yet” and that is the whole truth of it: no amount has been set, nobody has been charged, and there is nothing to buy on this page today.
There is no sample file to download, and there is not going to be one. Every other feed here keeps dated copies of something that moves and hands you a slice of the file first. This one is not that. Nobody is listed, so there is no file to show you, and the whole of what we hold is printed on this page: the rules below are the whole of it. If that ever stops being true this page stops being built — the check is in the code, not in somebody’s memory.
What a listing isus-what-we-may-say-about-a-person · read 2026-08-24
The line this product is not allowed to cross, read from the published law rather than assumed. A public, dated, sourced record about a named individual sits next to a body of federal law about reports on individuals. Whether that law reaches this product is UNKNOWN. What is NOT unknown is which side of it is safe, and every refusal in this product is on that side.
- Publish a claim a person asked us to publish, when a saved primary source supports it word for word
- Print the exact sentence we relied on, where it came from, and the day we read it
- Say plainly which claims we checked and which we did not
- Say that we could not confirm a claim against the source we read
- Delete a person's whole record on request, without asking why
Those five lines are the lane’s own, read out of its rules file as this page was built. They are not a summary of them.
What we check, and howtwo readings, and they never meet
Read one claim against one saved source. TWICE, by two genuinely different methods.
A second reading that can see the first reading's answer agrees with everything. So these two never meet:
- Reader A - the QUOTE reader. The person told us which sentence in the source backs their claim. This reader looks for that sentence, word for word, in the file we saved. It has no idea what the claim says.
- Reader B - the FACTS reader. It never looks at the person's sentence at all. It takes the hard facts on the claim - the name, the body that issued it, the licence or docket number, the year - and goes and finds them in the source itself, close enough together to be the same row rather than the same document.
Where they agree the claim is published as checked. Where they disagree it is published as NOT CHECKED, with a sentence about what we did, never about the person.
WHY BOTH ARE NEEDED, in one line each: Reader A alone passes a sentence that really is in the document and is about somebody else entirely. Reader B alone passes a document where the name is in the header and the number is in a footnote about a different person - which is why it insists they sit in one window.
There is no third state where a claim comes out FALSE. That state does not exist in this file, in the database, or on the page. Everything that is not checked is "not checked".
The three answers, and the fourth that does not exist
The three verdicts a comparison table may reach, and the fourth that does not exist.
- verified the sentence is in the saved page, it carries this value, and it is dated
- not_checked anything else at all
- withdrawn it was checked, it turned out not to hold, and it is never shown again
THERE IS DELIBERATELY NO VERDICT MEANING "THIS COMPANY'S CLAIM IS FALSE". A quote that no longer reproduces means WE cannot stand it up today. It does not mean the company lied, and the difference between those two sentences is the difference between a correction and a lawsuit. Nothing in this package can produce the second sentence.
The absence is what needs guarding, so `assert_no_false_state` exists to be pointed at a directory and prove no such word ever got added later by somebody who thought the table would read better with a red cross in it.
And for a whole record, three again:
The record a person actually receives and the public row that goes next to it.
Three verdicts, never two:
- sellable at least one claim was confirmed against a saved primary source, so there is a real verified column to sit in
- held something is wrong at OUR end - no consent on file, the rules stopped being checkable, the wording guard refused the page. No charge
- nothing_to_sell we read every claim honestly and could not confirm any of them. There is nothing to sell, so nothing is sold and nobody is charged. A product that always finds a verified claim is a product that verifies things that are not there
Everything built here goes through the wording guard one last time before it can leave. That check is not what makes this product safe - refusing to have a "false" state at all is. It is what PROVES it, and it fires, which is the difference between a guard and a decoration.
Every word an answer can be is listed here, and none of them accuses anybody: “cannot_read”, “held”, “not_checked”, “not_found”, “nothing_to_sell”, “sellable”, “supported”, “verified”, “withdrawn”. That was checked as this page was built, and the check was checked: the same test was run again with the word “untrue” dropped into the list, and it had to fail. If it had passed, this page would not exist — a test that has only ever agreed with us proves nothing about the day somebody adds a fourth answer.
What we will never say about youthe lane's own promise lines
- that a claim is false, untrue, misleading or exaggerated
- that anybody failed our check, or failed verification
- that a claim we could not confirm is therefore an unverified claim
- that one person on this list is better or safer than another
- anything at all about somebody who did not ask to be here
And the six things the rules file forbids outright:
- Say, imply or hint that a person's claim is false, exaggerated or dishonest
- Publish anything about a person who did not ask to be listed
- Publish a claim as verified when the two readings disagreed about it
- Keep a person listed after they have asked to be removed, for any reason including an unpaid or unrefunded invoice
- Sell, market or describe this record as a background check or a hiring-decision input
- Rank, score or compare the people listed against each other
The guard that reads the page before anybody else does50 accusing phrases · 21 ranking phrases
Does this text pass judgement on a person, or rank one? Returns what was found.
This is the last gate before anything is published. It is not what keeps this product safe - being built the right way is. It is what PROVES it was, and it can fire, which is the whole difference between a guard and a decoration.
`exempt_lines` are the page's own promise lines, and each one is forgiven AT MOST ONCE. Those sentences contain the exact phrases this hunts for, so dropping them is right; dropping every COPY of them is not, because a judging line written as a character-for-character copy of a promise bullet would sail straight through.
It was made to fire while this page was being built, and then made to stay quiet. Handed the made-up line “This claim is false.” — about no claim of anybody’s, and built out of the guard’s own first banned phrase so it cannot drift off the list — it refused it. Handed “We could not confirm this claim against the source we read.” it said nothing, which is the half that matters just as much: a guard that also refuses honest wording is one somebody switches off. Either answer coming out the other way stops this page being built.
Nothing in the lane, or in the shared code it leans on, sets an answer to a word that accuses somebody. Searched on this build. This one is a search rather than a guard, and it is reported as what it is: it looked, and it found nothing.
The 5 sentences of law we read first15 U.S.C. § 1681a and 15 U.S.C. § 1681e (Fair Credit Reporting Act definitions and accuracy duty) · 2024 edition · read 2026-08-24
Before any of this was built we read the law about what may be published about a named person, saved the government’s own text of it, and wrote down the sentences everything else turns on. Here they are, each beside the exact words we relied on.
| What it means | The law's own words | Where it says so |
|---|---|---|
| The law calls a person a 'consumer', and a consumer is simply an individual human being. | The term "consumer" means an individual. | 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c) |
| A report about a person, in this law, is information about their character, reputation or personal characteristics that somebody uses to decide whether that person is eligible for something. | The term "consumer report" means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for— (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title. | 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1) |
| Somebody who, for money, regularly puts together information about people and hands it to third parties is what this law calls an agency. | The term "consumer reporting agency" means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. | 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) |
| Using a report to decide about employing somebody is named in the law by that name. | The term "employment purposes" when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee. | 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(h) |
| Where this law applies, getting it as right as possible is a legal duty. That is the sentence this product's two-readings rule exists to honour, whether or not the duty reaches us. | Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. | 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) |
All 5 of those sentences were found word for word in our own saved copy of the statute, and that is checked every time this page is built. We did not read a summary and we did not work from memory. If one of them ever stops matching, this page does not get built at all.
Every definition below turns on the same three ingredients: information about a named individual, assembled by somebody, handed to a third party to help them decide about that individual. Whether this product is such a report is UNKNOWN and we deliberately do not build on the answer, because the safe side is identical whichever way it falls: publish only what the person themselves asked us to publish, publish only what a saved primary source supports word for word, never publish a judgement about the person, and remove them the moment they ask. Those four refusals are correct if the law reaches us and correct if it does not.
2 questions we did not answer
Written down here rather than rounded up into a yes or a no. An unknown that nothing acts on is a yes in disguise, so each one says what we do about it, and in both cases the answer is that nothing changes.
Is a paid, opt-in, public professional listing a report of the kind this law describes? Unknown. The person themselves asks for it, pays for it and can delete it, which is unlike the arrangement the law describes. But the listing is about a named individual, we assemble it, and somebody reads it before deciding whether to engage that individual, which is like it. We found no sentence in the saved text that settles it and we did not ask a lawyer.
What we do about it: Nothing changes either way. The four refusals stand, and the product is built so that being wrong about this costs the person nothing.
Does engaging an expert witness or a fractional executive count as the 'employment purposes' named in the law? Unknown. The saved text says 'evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee'. Most of the people this product lists are engaged, not employed. We did not find a sentence that answers it.
What we do about it: The product never markets itself as a hiring-decision input.
How to ask to be listed
Nobody is listed who did not ask to be. Consent is a stored row, not an assumption.
A person who has been removed cannot be put back by accident, by a re-import, or by the same script running twice. Coming back needs BOTH a consent dated after the day they left AND somebody saying out loud that this is a fresh opt-in.
You ask by email, and a person reads it. There is no form on this page, nowhere to send a file to, and nothing to sign up for. Say what you want checked and where it is written down — the register, the docket, the licence list, whatever it is — and we will tell you what we can and cannot stand up.
We are not promising you how long that takes, because nothing here has been through it yet. When we can honestly say, this page will say it here.
How to come off againno queue, no conditions
Somebody asked to come off. They come off. Now, in this call.
This function asks NOTHING for permission. It does not consult the rules gate, the kill pin, the payment rail or whether they have paid. Every other gate in this file guards US publishing something; none of them guards somebody leaving, and a removal that can be blocked by an unrelated fault is not a removal.
It is not a queue either. There is no 'pending removal' state, because a queue is a place where a removal sits while somebody is asked about it, and nobody is asked.
And the money, in the words the code hands back: “the record is gone from this database in this call. The money is recorded as owed back; paying it out is an operator action, because nothing in this build is allowed to move money outward”
If you are already listed and want to see for yourself what we stood up, that is a different door, and it is immediate:
"You published something about me - show me." The answer has to be immediate.
This re-reads the saved source from disk and re-runs both readings. It never reports from the stored verdict, because the stored verdict is exactly the thing being questioned. A source that has gone, or whose words have moved, comes back as cannot_support - which is the honest answer and is also the kill criterion firing.
Nobody is listed and nothing has been sold
The lane’s store is on our disk and every one of its 11 tables is empty. Read as this page was built, not remembered. There are no people in it, nothing has been checked, nothing has been published and nothing has been charged for.
That is why there are no numbers on this page. A page that counted its own emptiness at you would be reporting nothing as if it were something. What is above is what the check does and what the words mean, which is true today and will still be true on the day somebody first asks.
Where the words came from
- 15 U.S.C. § 1681a and 15 U.S.C. § 1681e (Fair Credit Reporting Act definitions and accuracy duty)Fetched from the government’s own publishing service on 2026-08-24 and saved to files we keep. Every sentence quoted above is held against those saved files on every build.
- Which edition, and how we knowThe edition is taken from the words printed at the top of the saved file - 'United States Code, 2024 Edition' - and never from the day we fetched it. A download date is a fact about us, not about the law. It is the 2024 edition.
- The words are free to reprintA federal statute is written and published by the United States government, and a work of that government carries no copyright of its own. That is what lets us print the law’s exact words beside each line rather than paraphrasing them at you.
- Everything else on this pageRead out of the lane’s own code as the page was built: the rules file for the lists, and the notes the working code carries about itself for the rest. None of it is a description written from memory.
This is not legal advice and we are not lawyers. It is a rulebook we hold ourselves to, written down where you can hold us to it.
Ask us to check something you say about yourself
No pay button on this one yet. Email operations@ustechautomations.com. Tell us what you want checked and where it is written down. There is nothing to buy here and nothing to sign up to.
Email us to ask to be listedIf you are already listed, the same address takes you off, immediately and without being asked why.