The Standard

01 / The standard, live

02 / Twelve rules

03 / How a piece is held to it

04 / Published before 1.0, not yet reviewed

1. 2026-04The fare
2. 2026-04The duopoly
3. 2026-03The Qatar block
4. 2026-03Alan Joyce and the politicians
5. 2026-03The frequent flyer financial machine
6. 2026-04Who owns the airports
7. 2026-04What the media covered
8. 2026-04What would fix it
9. 2026-09Thirteen days, pointed backwards
10. 2026-09Two machines, two clocks
11. 2026-07The crackdown that cost more
12. 2026-08The default is exposure
13. 2026-04We gave away the gas
14. 2026-04Beer, HECS, and the broken tax
15. 2026-04What Norway built
16. 2026-04Who profits
17. 2026-04The political connections
18. 2026-04How they killed the mining tax
19. 2026-04Why nothing changes
20. 2026-04What the media covers and how
21. 2026-04The decommissioning rort
22. 2026-04The east coast gas cartel
23. 2026-04Gas and climate: the final rort
24. 2026-07The A$60 billion boomerang: who cleans up the offshore rigs when the gas money is gone
25. 2026-07The inquiry that couldn't agree
26. 2026-08The boom that paid Woodside back
27. 2026-09The buyer and the backstop
28. 2026-04The two inflations
29. 2026-04Greedflation
30. 2026-04Why the RBA did all the work
31. 2026-04Who rate rises hurt
32. 2026-04Who rate rises helped
33. 2026-04The fiscal tools they didn’t use
34. 2026-04The political connections
35. 2026-04The reckoning
36. 2026-09-29Four rises in 2026
37. 2026-09-29A global war, a national rate
38. 2026-09-29What a rate rise buys
39. 2026-09-29Who pays for the rises
40. 2026-09-29Are corporations untouched?
41. 2026-09-29The savers’ share
42. 2026-09-29What the Reserve Bank pays the banks
43. 2026-09-29Is it the only way?
44. 2026-09-29Nine people, one rate
45. 2026-09-29Seven votes for a gas export tax, all lost
46. 2026-09-29The grill
47. 2026-10-04Above the 0.25
48. 2026-03Who owns the news you think you’re reading
49. 2026-03The mining company that owns your news
50. 2026-03The property platform that owned your property reporter
51. 2026-03Sky News and the regional capture
52. 2026-03The revolving door between politics and media
53. 2026-03501,876 signatures and nothing happened
54. 2026-09The levy that was designed to raise nothing
55. 2026-07The pay-to-clear switch: national approvals wired to an offset market with three projects and zero certificates
56. 2026-09Two paddocks and a deadline
57. 2026-09The only golf club
58. 2026-09Every failure listed, none priced
59. 2026-09One penalty
60. 2026-09Nearly five years
61. 2026-07Beds, not homes
62. 2026-07Buying storeys: how Anzac Parade developers pay for height, and the affordable-housing return is banked as cash
63. 2026-09Accepted in principle, refused in public
64. 2026-09-24The inbox checked once a day
65. 2026-09Nobody has to tell
66. 2026-09Fourteen days
67. 2026-10-03The fifth system
68. 2026-04The toll
69. 2026-04The model
70. 2026-04Transurban: the monopoly
71. 2026-04The fuel price cycle
72. 2026-04The political connections
73. 2026-04Who owns the roads
74. 2026-04What the media covered
75. 2026-04What would fix it
76. 2026-07Three hats: the Shellharbour council that is a developer, a regulator's named co-developer, and a seller that cannot fund its own build
77. 2026-07'Backroom decisions': Shellharbour widens CEO oversight
78. 2026-09Own it or delete it
79. 2026-09The writ
80. 2026-09Who pays
81. 2026-09The pattern
82. 2026-08The secrecy you can buy
83. 2026-09The order the Act cannot reach
84. 2026-10-03A line off the receipt
85. 2026-10-03The cost the Tax Office won’t wear
86. 2026-08The sunset that won't set
87. 2026-08The order that replaces the warrant
88. 2026-08The internet asks for ID
89. 2026-09The calls that did not connect
90. 2026-09One thousand and five
91. 2026-09Sixteen minutes
92. 2026-09Ninety-seven per cent
93. 2026-09The Australian position
94. 2026-09The round trip
95. 2026-09Five dollars
96. 2026-07The two-step: a rezoning more than doubled this Oxford Street site and delisted four heritage terraces, then the state stacked a tower on top
97. 2026-07Deemed-refusal drift: nine-figure projects decided by the court, not the council residents elected

05 / Figures that are not measured

1. ESTIMATECost to the Australian economy in lost tourism, ACCI estimateESTIMATE by the ACCI, as reported by Al Jazeera, not a measured figure: at least A$788m a year. Source: The Qatar block [3]. RS-3The sentence it rests on: “The ACCI estimated that blocking Qatar's bid would cost the Australian economy at least A$788 million a year in lost tourism.”Printed on /case/airline-rort and on every article in that case
2. MODELLEDBank (ADI) profit after tax if the 2025-26 pace holds, since 1 July 2026MODELLED by THE RORT, not a measured or reported total. Input: A$42.5 billion (2026), Who rate rises helped [17]. Spread evenly at A$1,348 a second from 1 July 2026. Assumes the 2025-26 pace holds. RS-3The sentence it rests on: “APRA reports bank profit of A$42.5 billion in the year to June 2026, up 7.5 per cent.”Printed on /case/inflation-rort and on every article in that case
3. ESTIMATEDefamation costsESTIMATE by Andrew Kenyon, Melbourne Law School, as reported by Al Jazeera, not a measured figure: up to A$25m. Source: Who pays [5]. RS-3The sentence it rests on: “the whole action is estimated to have cost up to A$25 million, a figure for the case as a whole, not the newspapers’ own bill.”Printed on /entity/ben-roberts-smith

06 / The register

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0056 · RS-10.1 · open · found by the gate

  Who answers for Triple Zero

  Remedy: Until the desk checks the piece against the clauses and enters the sign-off, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026 with no desk sign-off (standard.signoff), so no check of the piece against the clauses is recorded.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 201fa6088359f64c083a61f888f36669cd29a8decdab69796b08c3f78cd04be5
  Previous entry hash: 1e51464473eb625c3ac2d2899d7d3ed811fd4763a7702e939dcbc0a5eb7f9fce

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0055 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  Who answers for Triple Zero

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 1e51464473eb625c3ac2d2899d7d3ed811fd4763a7702e939dcbc0a5eb7f9fce
  Previous entry hash: 6a5cad23d153cf053c3d3247930af779b9b3f8818eefe725c85422380f2ca657

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0054 · RS-4.1 · open · found by the gate

  Who answers for Triple Zero

  Remedy: Until each brief point carries its grade, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The five points of the evidence brief carry no grade from E1 to E4.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 6a5cad23d153cf053c3d3247930af779b9b3f8818eefe725c85422380f2ca657
  Previous entry hash: 4040db91fe5ee34ba08c5422bea799e51b2a6588919213d26738c79fca230062

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0053 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  One thousand and five

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 4040db91fe5ee34ba08c5422bea799e51b2a6588919213d26738c79fca230062
  Previous entry hash: af8f7b86a043350b1158ecfb59bc02d6f5150e9a1ad4d2432b2d73e7d2039ae3

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0052 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  The calls that did not connect

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: af8f7b86a043350b1158ecfb59bc02d6f5150e9a1ad4d2432b2d73e7d2039ae3
  Previous entry hash: b2ac3802b7d6a1bc7c8488c2f6d6690c7f022a8fd1c482e0650f7012d3706b93

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0051 · RS-10.1 · open · found by the gate

  Factual accuracy

  Remedy: Until the desk checks the piece against the clauses and enters the sign-off, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026 with no desk sign-off (standard.signoff), so no check of the piece against the clauses is recorded.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: b2ac3802b7d6a1bc7c8488c2f6d6690c7f022a8fd1c482e0650f7012d3706b93
  Previous entry hash: 10c5fec769826481610c2d644c4ad92d738c46dce785654472dc289bea816396

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0050 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  Factual accuracy

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 10c5fec769826481610c2d644c4ad92d738c46dce785654472dc289bea816396
  Previous entry hash: bee6f0fa9246f7c0a9f6e158812d88b363957d643525b4ccb1a7fdff434424c6

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0049 · RS-4.1 · open · found by the gate

  Factual accuracy

  Remedy: Until each brief point carries its grade, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The five points of the evidence brief carry no grade from E1 to E4.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: bee6f0fa9246f7c0a9f6e158812d88b363957d643525b4ccb1a7fdff434424c6
  Previous entry hash: f6be85e64a7c96003c46089cdb8605644cb03b52af42c2b14c884c120a43abde

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0048 · RS-10.1 · open · found by the gate

  Promised in 2019

  Remedy: Until the desk checks the piece against the clauses and enters the sign-off, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026 with no desk sign-off (standard.signoff), so no check of the piece against the clauses is recorded.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: f6be85e64a7c96003c46089cdb8605644cb03b52af42c2b14c884c120a43abde
  Previous entry hash: 0216ea9d9f9b5fb5c2dd6e15f4cc1f9e9de4c4b1836f91211eb8399ca943fefe

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0047 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  Promised in 2019

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 0216ea9d9f9b5fb5c2dd6e15f4cc1f9e9de4c4b1836f91211eb8399ca943fefe
  Previous entry hash: 8eefbd1d415cda0f735f531686d389f986cd0acf231cb701ee70cc1a1a5dd70b

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0046 · RS-4.1 · open · found by the gate

  Promised in 2019

  Remedy: Until each brief point carries its grade, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  Published on 8 October 2026. The four points of the evidence brief carry no grade from E1 to E4.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 8eefbd1d415cda0f735f531686d389f986cd0acf231cb701ee70cc1a1a5dd70b
  Previous entry hash: e88d672b8f2a6368ebd91e53662593fad78bf68db9a703c8a14b28631875d3c2

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0045 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  Nearly five years

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: e88d672b8f2a6368ebd91e53662593fad78bf68db9a703c8a14b28631875d3c2
  Previous entry hash: bc6d6d32961484fccad908e076dc8276a1011b877fc2fc410d0917b4e0e98a44

• 9 October 2026Breach

  B-0044 · RS-6.2 · open · found by the gate

  One penalty

  Remedy: Until the desk names the reference that carries the adverse claims and it is a Tier 1 source in the evidence verdicts, or the desk records that the piece is not adverse, this entry stands open. The article is held by the session that owns the Privacy and Triple Zero pieces; the entry records the breach so the release gate is honest.

  The article's standard block declares it adverse (it names organisations in connection with alleged failures) but names no primary reference (standard.primaryRef), so nothing shows that the adverse claims rest on a Tier 1 document.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: bc6d6d32961484fccad908e076dc8276a1011b877fc2fc410d0917b4e0e98a44
  Previous entry hash: 7da543f37249402051df8724420b9405736f9083b317ba0ec3decec1490759d2

• 9 October 2026Closed

  B-0043 · RS-7.1 · closed, closes B-0041 · found by the gate

  One penalty

  Remedy (9 Oct 2026): The article now carries a dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 directly after the sentence, citing section 13G(3) as inserted by the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Act 2022 (Act No. 83 of 2022); the earlier sentence is left as published. Checked in the file on 9 October 2026: RS-7.1 no longer reproduces at this page, because the gate allows a sentence left as published beside its own dated Correction in the same article. The uncorrected formula still reaches readers through the ask index, which B-0042 holds open. B-0041 asked for the Correction paragraph and for the sentence to be "corrected or cut"; the sentence was neither, it was left as published beside the Correction. The desk accepted that as the remedy for this entry, and the gate now allows it only when the Correction that follows the sentence carries the withdrawn claim's own terms (W-0006).

  The article gives the Privacy Act maximum penalty for a company, from 13 December 2022, as the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, citing a law firm explainer. Section 13G(3) gives the greater of $50 million and either three times the value of the benefit, where the court can determine it, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, where it cannot. The correction is in "Fourteen days" (see B-0034 and W-0006). The sentence is still in this article.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 7da543f37249402051df8724420b9405736f9083b317ba0ec3decec1490759d2
  Previous entry hash: 6f019e3145d4eed3b68323d9a12425787a764fb4224503d614f637f7e3c59746

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0042 · RS-7.1 · open · found by the gate

  /sites/therort/content/ask-index.json

  Remedy: Until the ask index no longer serves the withdrawn formula in any chunk, this entry stands open: either the index builder leaves out or annotates a sentence that a dated Correction in the same article supersedes, or both sentences are cut from the articles. Closing it on the rebuild of one article alone is not enough; the release gate reads the term set of W-0006 across every chunk.

  The generated ask index, which readers' questions are answered from, holds standalone chunks that state the uncorrected Privacy Act penalty formula (the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, with the dollar sign spelled out in one of them): the sentence from "One penalty" and the sentence from "Fourteen days", each of which its article leaves as published beside a dated Correction (see B-0041, B-0034 and W-0006). The Correction paragraph is a separate chunk, so a reader asking about the penalty can be given the withdrawn formula without it.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 6f019e3145d4eed3b68323d9a12425787a764fb4224503d614f637f7e3c59746
  Previous entry hash: 599d6f0f68834764f5a8395162d2452f490ff40b88fca31205a2847a3a39e4d4

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0041 · RS-7.1 · closed by B-0043 · found by the gate

  One penalty

  Closed by B-0043 (9 Oct 2026): The article now carries a dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 directly after the sentence, citing section 13G(3) as inserted by the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Act 2022 (Act No. 83 of 2022); the earlier sentence is left as published. Checked in the file on 9 October 2026: RS-7.1 no longer reproduces at this page, because the gate allows a sentence left as published beside its own dated Correction in the same article. The uncorrected formula still reaches readers through the ask index, which B-0042 holds open. B-0041 asked for the Correction paragraph and for the sentence to be "corrected or cut"; the sentence was neither, it was left as published beside the Correction. The desk accepted that as the remedy for this entry, and the gate now allows it only when the Correction that follows the sentence carries the withdrawn claim's own terms (W-0006).

  The article gives the Privacy Act maximum penalty for a company, from 13 December 2022, as the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, citing a law firm explainer. Section 13G(3) gives the greater of $50 million and either three times the value of the benefit, where the court can determine it, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, where it cannot. The correction is in "Fourteen days" (see B-0034 and W-0006). The sentence is still in this article.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 599d6f0f68834764f5a8395162d2452f490ff40b88fca31205a2847a3a39e4d4
  Previous entry hash: 7046e486611cc70205ec89e8f60d1c1280bae9dfb84c55418e0f63d8c5ad9c8c

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0040 · RS-5 · open · found by the desk

  The inbox checked once a day

  Remedy: Until the desk lists the three parties in the article's reply record and prints each reply in full, this entry stands open. The three replies sit in the article as extracts only.

  The article's update paragraphs record replies from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (7 October 2026), the Victorian Department of Health (6 October 2026) and AIHW Media (7 October 2026) as extracts and summaries. The article's reply record does not list those three parties, and none of the replies is printed in full.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 7046e486611cc70205ec89e8f60d1c1280bae9dfb84c55418e0f63d8c5ad9c8c
  Previous entry hash: 8d99a6325b9fb6cbb8729885b881187b867031a586de44f84ec1ac4b73f5d992

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0039 · RS-5.8 · open · found by the gate

  The fifth system

  Remedy: Until the department's statement is printed in full under the article, this entry stands open. The article's record says the response is summarised and not yet printed in full.

  The Victorian Department of Health answered on 6 October 2026 in a statement headed "Quotes attributable to the Department of Health". The article quotes extracts of the statement in an update paragraph. The reply is not printed in full.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 8d99a6325b9fb6cbb8729885b881187b867031a586de44f84ec1ac4b73f5d992
  Previous entry hash: 2c419e8068a231c39a0a8ab30eca0fe88e418a914d22da8c60c9d9b54b0f8060

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0038 · RS-5.8 · open · found by the gate

  The fifth system

  Remedy: Until the Bureau's email is printed in full under the article, this entry stands open. The article's record says the response is summarised and not yet printed in full.

  The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research answered on 7 October 2026 in an email from its Executive Director. The article quotes extracts of the email in an update paragraph. The reply is not printed in full.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 2c419e8068a231c39a0a8ab30eca0fe88e418a914d22da8c60c9d9b54b0f8060
  Previous entry hash: 19925ed561f589dee20cb58e1d5b332c6359e6b076416b5e34f056c7329e1180

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0037 · RS-5.8 · open · found by the gate

  The fifth system

  Remedy: Until the department's reply is printed in full under the article, this entry stands open. The article's record says the response is summarised and not yet printed in full.

  The NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water answered on 6 October 2026. The article quotes extracts of the NSW Government statement the department sent and summarises its covering reply. The reply is not printed in full.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 19925ed561f589dee20cb58e1d5b332c6359e6b076416b5e34f056c7329e1180
  Previous entry hash: 95730bc62db9be6de0d0b27b99fa92cae3921eff0c8528f4c7df2d7679b68f4b

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0036 · RS-2 · closed · found by the desk

  Fourteen days

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): A dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 says so and describes the outcome as the OAIC does. The row and the earlier correction are left as published. The Tribunal's reasons have not been read, so the term is recorded as unchecked and not as wrong. The Bunnings entry on the entity page uses the same term and is not corrected by this entry.

  The article's Bunnings row, and a correction beneath it, said the Administrative Review Tribunal 'set aside' the finding that the collection was unlawful (APP 3.3). The OAIC statement cited for the row says the Tribunal 'departed from' that finding and does not use 'set aside'. The legal term had not been checked against the Tribunal's own reasons.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 95730bc62db9be6de0d0b27b99fa92cae3921eff0c8528f4c7df2d7679b68f4b
  Previous entry hash: 4d9c051027f2d43c7f0ea915f561b860168e2bfac8482e3e218954262d1ea34b

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0035 · RS-2 · closed · found by the desk

  Fourteen days

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): A dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 gives the Chair's words and the proof Hansard page, and says that what the ACMA does now has not been checked for the article. The earlier paragraph is left as published.

  The article described the ACMA's practice on sending draft releases to the entity concerned in the present tense, from the ACMA's published page and its statement to the ABC. It did not say that on 10 February 2026 the ACMA's Chair told the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, at Estimates, that in future the ACMA would not be consulting on media releases before they go public. The statement pre-dates the article.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 4d9c051027f2d43c7f0ea915f561b860168e2bfac8482e3e218954262d1ea34b
  Previous entry hash: 97f1d5e241c6ab4bed8eea200767f7827d4bb8a704c34cbd8e32ece77b72c22e

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0034 · RS-2 · closed · found by the desk

  Fourteen days

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): A dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 states the provision, citing the Act itself, and the earlier sentence is left as published. The same formula, taken from the same explainer, appears in the article "One penalty" (privacy-rort/one-penalty) and in the ask index built from it; B-0041 and B-0042 hold those two open until they are corrected.

  The article gave the Privacy Act's maximum penalty for a company, from 13 December 2022, as the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, citing a law firm's explainer. Section 13G(3) of the Privacy Act 1988, as inserted by Act No. 83 of 2022, gives the greater of $50 million and either three times the value of the benefit, where the court can determine it, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, where it cannot.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 97f1d5e241c6ab4bed8eea200767f7827d4bb8a704c34cbd8e32ece77b72c22e
  Previous entry hash: ad9ed16fe9c37bdf56472bf7c0a228438602b771b380a774e6188260d0817a70

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0033 · RS-5.3 · open · found by the gate

  Accepted in principle, refused in public

  Remedy: Until the desk enters the reply date and the day of publication in the article's record, this entry stands open.

  The article's right-of-reply record gives no reply date for the questions to Randwick City Council and no day of publication, so it cannot show that a reply date had passed, or that Council had answered, before publication. The article says that as at publication Council had not answered any of the three questions.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: ad9ed16fe9c37bdf56472bf7c0a228438602b771b380a774e6188260d0817a70
  Previous entry hash: 8fd41b3e1a954e9b10945a7c84cb5e01f3b35347530285978533e451b85c310d

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0032 · RS-5.2 · open · found by the gate

  Accepted in principle, refused in public

  Remedy: Until the desk enters both dates in the article's record, this entry stands open.

  The article's right-of-reply record has neither the day the questions to Randwick City Council were sent nor the day the article was published. Its byline gives September 2026 only, and the article says that as at publication Council had not answered any of the three questions.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 8fd41b3e1a954e9b10945a7c84cb5e01f3b35347530285978533e451b85c310d
  Previous entry hash: b7ff1b201b65b32cdc0112d51874805d4ad5b0887d46baadedcc590a06333cf8

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0031 · RS-5.3 · closed · permanent · found by the gate

  The fifth system

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The reply dates are printed on the article and in its record. The NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Victorian Department of Health answered on 6 October 2026 and the Bureau on 7 October 2026, and their replies are in the article as dated updates; the other replies are still due. A reply date that falls after publication cannot be moved earlier, so the entry is permanent.

  The article was published on 3 October 2026 before the reply dates in its record: 9 October 2026 for the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the NSW Premier's Department, Cyber Security NSW and OpenAI, and 8 October 2026 for the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the Victorian Department of Health. None had answered when it was published. See B-0011.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: b7ff1b201b65b32cdc0112d51874805d4ad5b0887d46baadedcc590a06333cf8
  Previous entry hash: e4cef6f606f1bf1d4afe8fa420be0b18fe2bc1e63dd65130d2085c5b67bd79c4

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0030 · RS-5.2 · open · found by the gate

  The fifth system

  Remedy: Until the desk enters the date each set of questions was sent in the article's record, this entry stands open.

  The article's right-of-reply record has no date on which the questions to the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the NSW Premier's Department, Cyber Security NSW, OpenAI and the Victorian Department of Health were sent. The article says only that THE RORT is putting them, with a reply date. The date is entered for the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (2 October 2026). See B-0011.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: e4cef6f606f1bf1d4afe8fa420be0b18fe2bc1e63dd65130d2085c5b67bd79c4
  Previous entry hash: 1262523ac320f405051e278ed45e1b9c0a74a68165d7bff570d82fa7ef1f47c3

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0029 · RS-5.3 · closed · permanent · found by the gate

  Above the 0.25

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The record states what was sent, when the reply was asked for, and that the reply date falls after publication. Any reply from NAB is added to the article as a dated update. A reply date that falls after publication cannot be moved earlier, so the entry is permanent.

  The article was published on 4 October 2026. Its right-of-reply record shows the questions NAB was sent on 2 October 2026 with a reply date of 8 October 2026, four days after publication. Those questions were sent for another article in the series; the eleven new questions for this article had not been sent when it was published (see B-0012).

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 1262523ac320f405051e278ed45e1b9c0a74a68165d7bff570d82fa7ef1f47c3
  Previous entry hash: 9436afa70fb5e1933cf23d05a75e77d28b6d575614045d1e31df98ccedd3c4c2

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0028 · RS-2 · closed · found by the desk

  What would fix it

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The ACCI's estimate, as Al Jazeera reports it, is one figure: at least A$788 million a year in lost tourism, a cost to the Australian economy. The fact box and the key facts now say so, with a dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026.

  The fact box and the key facts gave the same A$540M to A$788M a year range as the estimated cost of 20 months of foregone Qatar competition. The low end is not in the source the series cites for the ACCI's estimate, and the estimate is a cost to the economy in lost tourism, not a measure of lost competition.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 9436afa70fb5e1933cf23d05a75e77d28b6d575614045d1e31df98ccedd3c4c2
  Previous entry hash: c4759b1503338e5d63f949abdf8a93d37b10ddb8e2c8357c3ea5ff5b216d51fa

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0027 · RS-2 · closed · found by the desk

  The Qatar block

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The ACCI's estimate, as Al Jazeera reports it, is one figure: at least A$788 million a year in lost tourism, a cost to the Australian economy. The range and the descriptions are withdrawn everywhere they appeared, in the subtitle, brief, body, fact box, key facts, closing quotation, reference notes and graphic, with a dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026. The withdrawn wording is entered as W-0005, so the gate finds any copy.

  The article gave the ACCI's estimate of the cost of the Qatar block as a range, between A$540 million and A$788 million a year, citing Al Jazeera, and in places as "up to" A$788 million, a ceiling. The source cited carries no A$540 million figure, so the low end was attributed to a source that does not hold it, and it gives A$788 million as "at least", a floor. In places the figure was also described as a cost to Australians or consumers, or as the price of lost competition; the section blurb and the editorial feed entry said the delay "cost Australians" up to that sum. The error was in the article before this standard; adopting the standard promoted it into a public counter label.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: c4759b1503338e5d63f949abdf8a93d37b10ddb8e2c8357c3ea5ff5b216d51fa
  Previous entry hash: 74ecb0dbcad6f4ffae5b3abd8f7a141bfd60015ca636cddb1280713411fdfacf

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0026 · RS-3.1 · closed · found by the gate

  /entity/ben-roberts-smith

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): Declared an ESTIMATE, qualified "up to", attributed to the report that carries it, Al Jazeera's, because that report states the figure in the passive and does not say who made the estimate. It is tied to the sentence in "Who pays" that carries it.

  The "Defamation costs" figure of A$25 million declared no basis and did not say whose estimate it was, while Method 1.2 said "No estimated figures".

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 74ecb0dbcad6f4ffae5b3abd8f7a141bfd60015ca636cddb1280713411fdfacf
  Previous entry hash: 699d6d9641222cb959bdade89f415a60ca6169cecddf78f8a903ad70ccb71536

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0025 · RS-3.2 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/inflation-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): It is declared modelled, with its input, its assumption (the 2025-26 pace holds) and its start date.

  The bank-profit counter ticked from 1 July 2026 without being declared modelled.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 699d6d9641222cb959bdade89f415a60ca6169cecddf78f8a903ad70ccb71536
  Previous entry hash: df70cb0b97add27658d72876ec48231f28c76580520fbddd64de5155d1479a2f

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0024 · RS-3.2 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/inflation-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The rate is no longer typed: the build works it out from the A$42.5 billion input.

  A rate of A$1,348 a second was typed into the desk file for the bank-profit counter.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: df70cb0b97add27658d72876ec48231f28c76580520fbddd64de5155d1479a2f
  Previous entry hash: 362d1b235224660d87d585728dc43ea6edf5e45203ff96678c4ffc74202a2de4

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0023 · RS-3.1 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/inflation-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The counter is declared MODELLED in the desk file and the page labels it as THE RORT's arithmetic, with its input, rate and start date. Its input is tied to a sentence in "Who rate rises helped", which now reads A$42.5 billion.

  The bank-profit counter declared no basis and ran marked "live" with an auto-assembled stamp. Its figure was THE RORT's own arithmetic on one APRA annual figure, A$42.5 billion, spread evenly from 1 July 2026; no article stated it and it was not a reported figure. It ran while Method 1.2 said "No estimated figures".

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 362d1b235224660d87d585728dc43ea6edf5e45203ff96678c4ffc74202a2de4
  Previous entry hash: 68b54d894bff8fff40df5fbd13b9446b975e2abb7b3c83420004470ec080c192

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0022 · RS-3.2 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/airline-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): It is retired as a running total. The ACCI's estimate stays as a static estimate with no start date.

  The Qatar counter ticked from a start date although it was not declared modelled: an estimate by someone else was run on as if it were a running total.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 68b54d894bff8fff40df5fbd13b9446b975e2abb7b3c83420004470ec080c192
  Previous entry hash: b00955afb32e6c27f4771bc742e20f356c2a9e3dc0d2bc51e72d9340b9e725cc

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0021 · RS-3.2 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/airline-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): No rate is typed. The counter no longer ticks: it is a static estimate with no rate.

  A rate of A$24.98 a second was typed into the desk file for the Qatar counter, so the number on the page was typed, not worked out.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: b00955afb32e6c27f4771bc742e20f356c2a9e3dc0d2bc51e72d9340b9e725cc
  Previous entry hash: bf80ef19355269f67210b79a0ff1fd68f6f683b8d08f3a1c6385530dd5c263aa

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0020 · RS-3.1 · closed · found by the gate

  /case/airline-rort

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The counter declares a basis: it is an ESTIMATE attributed to the ACCI, as reported by Al Jazeera, with its qualifier "at least" and tied to a sentence in "The Qatar block", and the page shows it as an estimate by the ACCI.

  The Qatar counter ran from 10 July 2023 under the label "Cost of the Qatar block to travellers" and declared no basis. It was not a cost to travellers: its source is an estimate of a cost to the economy. It was labelled and ran as a ticking running total while Method 1.2 said "No estimated figures".

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: bf80ef19355269f67210b79a0ff1fd68f6f683b8d08f3a1c6385530dd5c263aa
  Previous entry hash: 18f13cc99fa26d31d76656d5a94f382134ed8723206a6debbc746876f2080709

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0019 · RS-7.1 · closed · found by the gate

  /sites/therort/content/ask-index.json

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The ask index was rebuilt from the corrected articles on 8 October 2026, and the gate reads generated files as well as articles.

  The generated ask index, which readers' questions are answered from, still held the withdrawn Mandelson claim in the chunks built from the articles above, so the site still served it after the articles were corrected.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 18f13cc99fa26d31d76656d5a94f382134ed8723206a6debbc746876f2080709
  Previous entry hash: ce58b369ac64dca05b7ef769e6f0b8b7b72432fb7621051433b66c6fa2a31e25

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0018 · RS-7.1 · closed · found by the gate

  What the media covers and how

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The sentence now points to Article 6, where the sources are cited, and says what the emails show. A dated Correction paragraph was added on 8 October 2026.

  The closing section said the Prime Minister was removed by a campaign that a British political operative later admitted had no principled justification. That is the withdrawn claim in other words.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: ce58b369ac64dca05b7ef769e6f0b8b7b72432fb7621051433b66c6fa2a31e25
  Previous entry hash: 66d918b1c2a38631c282913d7585f1279390c6d588b16122aa9b6fca171de4ac

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0017 · RS-7.1 · closed · found by the gate

  What the media covers and how

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The line now says that, as Article 6 sets out, the files show a British political figure advising the industry. A dated Correction paragraph was added on 8 October 2026.

  A line in the section on News Corp said the Epstein files revealed the 2010 campaign was being coordinated at the highest levels of international political networking. The files do not say that. The correction of 7 October 2026 was not applied here, as Method 1.2 required.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 66d918b1c2a38631c282913d7585f1279390c6d588b16122aa9b6fca171de4ac
  Previous entry hash: 95d3283d7bbf941f8fa26c709cc591d319c23ea476bf684528a4c4b3f3f4a1b0

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0016 · RS-7.1 · closed · found by the gate

  Why nothing changes

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The label and the quoted sentence now describe the released emails, in which a British political figure advises the industry and tells it there was "no ideological reason" it should not contribute more. The same dated Correction paragraph of 8 October 2026 covers them.

  The same claim survived in the timeline entry that cites that point: its label described the revelation of a campaign "coordinated by a British operative who privately admitted there was no principled argument against it", and the sentence it quotes said the same.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 95d3283d7bbf941f8fa26c709cc591d319c23ea476bf684528a4c4b3f3f4a1b0
  Previous entry hash: 7ee11ad7676df0e321a9ea171eebc92b080343a32f18c9ee2e4839290e76e044

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0015 · RS-7.1 · closed · found by the gate

  Why nothing changes

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The point now says what the reporting supports, that he advised the industry and shared campaign emails with Epstein, and cites Accounting Times and ABC News. A dated Correction paragraph was added on 8 October 2026. The line saying the claim was documented in primary sources was removed, because the series has not read the Department of Justice release itself.

  The claim corrected on 7 October 2026 in "How they killed the mining tax", that Peter Mandelson coordinated the 2010 campaign and privately admitted it had no principled case, survived in reworded form in the first point under "What is different in 2026", which also said the campaign's dishonesty was documented in primary sources. The correction was not applied everywhere the claim appeared, as Method 1.2 required.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 7ee11ad7676df0e321a9ea171eebc92b080343a32f18c9ee2e4839290e76e044
  Previous entry hash: 2bd5fd5353d911efb357c60f87a11239a574df0be8f244177c0d07047ae9dc13

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0014 · RS-5 · open · found by the desk

  The cost the Tax Office won’t wear

  Remedy: The article says answers will be added as dated updates. It does not yet record when the questions were sent. Until it does, this entry stands open.

  Right-of-reply questions to the ATO, the Treasurer's office, the Finance Minister's office, Ayres's office, Visa, Mastercard, Australian Payments Plus, pay.com.au, Sniip and ACCI had not been sent when the article was published on 3 October 2026, as its own text states. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 2bd5fd5353d911efb357c60f87a11239a574df0be8f244177c0d07047ae9dc13
  Previous entry hash: 3e1f5f8c5e03e84cf2f1c4a9c4fbf7d3c9c0561a7dba6087965705a278a08643

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0013 · RS-5 · open · found by the desk

  A line off the receipt

  Remedy: The article says answers will be added as dated updates. It does not yet record when the questions were sent. Until it does, this entry stands open.

  Right-of-reply questions to the RBA, the Treasurer's office, Visa, Mastercard, Australian Payments Plus, the ACCC and the Australian Banking Association had not been sent when the article was published on 3 October 2026, as its own text states. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 3e1f5f8c5e03e84cf2f1c4a9c4fbf7d3c9c0561a7dba6087965705a278a08643
  Previous entry hash: d5ec0239f864c55531d5ad4321a554597cbe0dd3d1263b9ae742c1196b0254ee

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0012 · RS-5 · open · found by the desk

  Above the 0.25

  Remedy: The article says the date and time the questions are sent will be recorded on it and that any reply will be added. Until it records that they were sent, this entry stands open.

  The eleven new questions to NAB had not been sent when the article was published on 4 October 2026, as its own record states, and it asks for a reply by 5pm AEDT on Monday 12 October 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: d5ec0239f864c55531d5ad4321a554597cbe0dd3d1263b9ae742c1196b0254ee
  Previous entry hash: 6e9b91bdd614a9b18c2fb1d9102fb2333e8334f47a2e67b18f99f212c80de22b

• 8 October 2026Breach

  B-0011 · RS-5 · open · found by the desk

  The fifth system

  Remedy: The reply date is printed on the article and in its record, and answers are added as dated updates; the first answers, from the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Victorian Department of Health, were added on 6 October 2026, and one from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research on 8 October 2026. Until the desk enters the date each set of questions was sent in the article's record, this entry stands open.

  The article was published on 3 October 2026 with its questions to the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the NSW Premier's Department, Cyber Security NSW and OpenAI still being put, and a reply date of 5pm AEDT on 9 October 2026, six days after publication. The article's own record does not say that the questions were sent before it was published. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 6e9b91bdd614a9b18c2fb1d9102fb2333e8334f47a2e67b18f99f212c80de22b
  Previous entry hash: f68f8935a0df3107081858df157e04fcf1febebced8e2e20e150347614c659ff

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0010 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  The inbox checked once a day

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026, and second questions to PM&C and OpenAI on 6 October 2026 are due by 5pm AEDT on 9 October. The offers, and the absence of a response from the three to the first questions by the deadline, are recorded in a dated update on the article, with the right-of-reply record entered in its data. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The right-of-reply questions to the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and OpenAI were first emailed on 2 October 2026, eight days after the article was published on 24 September 2026; the article's record of 28 September 2026 said right-of-reply questions "are being prepared" for them. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication. The questions for the Department of Home Affairs were not delivered.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: f68f8935a0df3107081858df157e04fcf1febebced8e2e20e150347614c659ff
  Previous entry hash: 057265d5d00a567a3d9ff599d1e6118e4a69739ad8176dddbba14045c13f4c56

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0009 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  Nobody has to tell

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026, and second questions to PM&C and OpenAI on 6 October 2026 are due by 5pm AEDT on 9 October. The offers, and the absence of a response from the three to the first questions by the deadline, are recorded in dated updates on the article, with the right-of-reply record entered in its data. Home Affairs' mail gateway rejected three sends on 2 October. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The right-of-reply questions to the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and OpenAI were first emailed on 2 October 2026, eight days after the article was published on 24 September 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication. The questions for the Department of Home Affairs were not delivered.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 057265d5d00a567a3d9ff599d1e6118e4a69739ad8176dddbba14045c13f4c56
  Previous entry hash: b8e06117ec3979c4f2573d89cb8014c9f1dd79e60cb592c3fbf9e938c183ca30

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0008 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  One penalty

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The Medibank and Optus questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026, and their replies of 6 and 8 October are recorded in dated updates on the article. The article's record says the questions to the Commissioner remain open and does not state the date they were sent. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The article's own record states that the right-of-reply questions to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Singtel Optus and Medibank had not been sent when it was published on 25 September 2026. The Medibank and Optus questions were sent on 2 October 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: b8e06117ec3979c4f2573d89cb8014c9f1dd79e60cb592c3fbf9e938c183ca30
  Previous entry hash: 1c0f80ce65d831d3fd4deac8b9249437a9c09e2a7a924cf602cb262ca4abbc56

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0007 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  Nearly five years

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026. Medibank's reply of 6 October and Optus's reply of 8 October are quoted in dated updates on the article. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The right-of-reply questions that were put to Medibank and Optus were first sent on 2 October 2026, after the article was published on 25 September 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 1c0f80ce65d831d3fd4deac8b9249437a9c09e2a7a924cf602cb262ca4abbc56
  Previous entry hash: e265e8e54379e44a32c25d1bea4f78354b42ead235d2c4efbfc47d988309a30e

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0006 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  The calls that did not connect

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026. The late offer is recorded in a dated update on the article, and Optus's reply of 8 October is quoted there. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The right-of-reply questions to ACMA, Optus and Telstra were first emailed on 2 October 2026, seven days after the article was published on 25 September 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication. It is a separate breach from B-0005, on another article of the same case, found in the same check.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: e265e8e54379e44a32c25d1bea4f78354b42ead235d2c4efbfc47d988309a30e
  Previous entry hash: cc973375d6a8fa98e819e63251b3979ce9e079d2b60c1166f11a74cd52b834e0

• 8 October 2026Closed

  B-0005 · RS-5.2 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  One thousand and five

  Remedy (8 Oct 2026): The questions were put with a deadline of 5pm AEDT on 8 October 2026. The late offer is recorded in a dated update on the article, and Optus's reply of 8 October is quoted there. A late offer cannot be made early, so the entry is permanent.

  The right-of-reply questions to ACMA and Optus were first emailed on 2 October 2026, seven days after the article was published on 25 September 2026. Method 1.2 required the offer before publication.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: cc973375d6a8fa98e819e63251b3979ce9e079d2b60c1166f11a74cd52b834e0
  Previous entry hash: 5c083c6cb4412e2ce6811749b44ad682080a4d60c6b40c4599abbe96be51bc6a

• 7 October 2026Closed

  B-0004 · RS-6 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  The Australian position

  Remedy (7 Oct 2026): The column, the sentences that relied on it and reference [10] were removed on 7 October 2026, with a dated Correction paragraph. The other columns are unchanged.

  A fourth table column headed "Defence fund", and sentences linking the table to the same report, relied on a claim that rested on unnamed sources alone.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 5c083c6cb4412e2ce6811749b44ad682080a4d60c6b40c4599abbe96be51bc6a
  Previous entry hash: 7ab82df613297c34f166350e06bd22f63cf8b5bd603719f02e2fba4120f8acaa

• 7 October 2026Closed

  B-0003 · RS-6 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  Sixteen minutes

  Remedy (7 Oct 2026): The passage and the sentences elsewhere in the article that relied on it were removed on 7 October 2026, with a dated Correction paragraph, under the rule that an adverse claim resting on an anonymous source alone is cut.

  A passage set out a Financial Times report of 30 March 2026, relayed by Al Jazeera, about the US defence secretary, with the Pentagon's reply and the letters it drew from members of Congress. The report rested on unnamed sources alone and no primary document establishes it.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 7ab82df613297c34f166350e06bd22f63cf8b5bd603719f02e2fba4120f8acaa
  Previous entry hash: da059fe47431b3cf2137f3971be12c7b8b5b2bf0dd0524368283909f0c3b4e7d

• 7 October 2026Closed

  B-0002 · RS-6 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  Alan Joyce and the politicians

  Remedy (7 Oct 2026): The passage was removed on 7 October 2026, with a dated Correction paragraph, under the rule that an adverse claim resting on an anonymous source alone is cut.

  A passage on how the upgrades were obtained rested on unnamed Qantas insiders, as reported by the book's author. No primary document carries it. The upgrades themselves were declared on the parliamentary register of interests.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: da059fe47431b3cf2137f3971be12c7b8b5b2bf0dd0524368283909f0c3b4e7d
  Previous entry hash: 143dd360ad2605d193e9039758f01634a81b82ca6926d42dc79befb74be14e3a

• 7 October 2026Closed

  B-0001 · RS-6 · closed · permanent · found by the desk

  Alan Joyce and the politicians

  Remedy (7 Oct 2026): The paragraph was removed on 7 October 2026, with a dated Correction paragraph, under the rule that an adverse claim resting on an anonymous source alone is cut.

  A paragraph quoted an anonymous Qantas whistleblower, as reported by The Nightly, making a claim about a named former Qantas executive. It rested on an unnamed source alone, and no primary document carries it.

  Read the desk note

  Entry hash: 143dd360ad2605d193e9039758f01634a81b82ca6926d42dc79befb74be14e3a
  Previous entry hash: GENESIS

07 / Complaints

08 / Where to send it

09 / What else the clauses carry

1. RS-9THE RORT is owned by its publisher and funded entirely from his own money. It has no other income of any kind: no advertising, sponsorship, donations, grants or subscriptions, and no payment from anyoneFUNDING
2. RS-9No subject of coverage, and nobody acting for one, approves, edits or vetoes copy. Right of reply puts each adverse claim to them in writing; it does not hand them the textHARD RULE
3. RS-8Anyone who works on a case declares any direct financial interest in its subject (shares held directly, employment, a contract or a payment), any family or close personal connection to anyone it names, and any personal stake in it, such as living or paying rates where its subject governsDECLARED
4. RS-6A person who brings information to the desk, through the tip line or any other channel, is never named and never identified, unless they ask in writing to be namedPROTECTED
5. RS-6A person quoted on the record is named. Where a person is quoted without a name, the article says so and says why. An anonymous tip is a lead, never a findingNAMED
6. RS-6Anything drawn from an unnamed source is attributed to the outlet that reported it, and the article says the source was unnamedUNNAMED

10 / What no program checks

11 / The code, mapped

1. RS-2Every published fact is checked to be accurate, sourced and not misleading, and fact is kept distinct from commentACCURACY
2. RS-10Facts are presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and no conclusion depends on leaving a key fact outFAIRNESS
3. RS-5Anyone named adversely is offered a reply before publication or promotionREPLY
4. RS-2No quote, document, figure or source is invented, composited or alteredNO FABRICATION
5. RS-10Material is not gathered by deception, by misrepresenting who is asking, or by other unfair means, unless the public interest requires it and the article says how it was obtainedFAIR MEANS
6. RS-10Argument is written as argument, in the desk's own voice, and is never built on a fact the record does not carryOPINION
7. RS-10Nobody's reasonable expectation of privacy, a public figure's included, is intruded on unless it bears on the mechanism the record documents and the public interest requires it. Home addresses and personal details beyond what identifies a person are not publishedPRIVACY
8. RS-10Causing or contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to anyone's health or safety, is avoided unless the public interest requires itHARM
9. RS-8A conflict of interest is avoided where it can be, declared where it cannot, and never allowed to shape what is publishedCONFLICTS
10. RS-7An error, or anything misleading, is corrected promptly and visiblyCORRECTION

12 / Versions

1. 1.0First published. Twelve clauses, each stated with how it is enforced. It sits beside the Method's standards of practice, code, complaints, ownership and funding, conflicts and sources blocks, which the Method keeps and now points to this page. One earlier line is relaxed, by the publisher's decision of 8 October 2026: the Method's "No estimated figures" becomes RS-3, which allows an estimate only when it is attributed by name and a modelled figure only when it is labelled as THE RORT's own arithmetic, and which forbids either to be presented as fact. A second earlier line is relaxed in the same decision: the Method's "Any response received is published in full" now covers an on-the-record response, and a response given on background is recorded as such, without its content.V1.0 · 2026-10-08