We re-checked 25 of our records. Here is what we could check, and what we could not.

We drew 25 of our vendor records at random and re-read every one a script is allowed to read. That was 7. All 7 quotes were still on the vendor’s page, and one record stated a country its document does not; we corrected it on 9 October. The other 18 cannot be re-read by script, for the reasons below. Vannus checked its own records here, so this is an in-house check, not an independent one: no one outside Vannus reviews the records today.

How the 25 were drawn

The 25 come from the 177 vendor records the catalog held on 9 October 2026. We did not choose them. The commit our code stood at that day, b5b7ddd6, is the random seed, so anyone with the repository can draw the same 25:

random.Random(int("b5b7ddd680c741f38bc19705baee5b794111c116", 16)).sample(sorted(all_vendor_records()), 25)

Each record was checked against the document it cites: the quote, the contracting entity, its country, the governing law, any condition the entity depends on, and the finding on US control.

The 7 a script could re-read

Each page was fetched once, by the fetcher that keeps our records, which reads a site’s own terms before it reads anything else there. The quote was matched by our quote checker; the other facts were checked by hand against the vendor’s own text.

The one we got wrong

CropX’s record said “Contracts with CropX Technologies Ltd. (Israel)”. Its terms name CropX Technologies Ltd. and say nothing about where it is incorporated. Israeli law governs them, and we had read the law as the country; a governing-law clause is not a place of incorporation. The record also called a second company, CropX Inc., a US entity, on the strength of a copyright line. We withdrew both on 9 October. The record now names CropX Technologies Ltd. alone and marks its country as not established, and its history says when and why it changed.

The 18 a script could not re-read

None of these was held back because of anything we know about the record. Each is held by a rule about reading a site by script, and none of those rules stops a person reading the same page in a browser.

What this shows, and what it does not

• It shows that for the 7 records a script can re-read, the quotes are current and the facts match their documents, apart from one country read from a law clause.
• It is not an error rate. One error in 7 records is consistent with a true rate anywhere from about 0.4% to 58%, at 95% confidence. Only a larger check narrows that.
• The 7 are not a fair cross-section. They are the records on sites that allow a scripted read. The other 18 are records our own re-checker cannot reach either, so they are the ones most likely to have gone stale.
• The error was one our tests could not catch. Our tests check that a record agrees with itself and with the words it quotes, not with parts of a document it never held.

This post is a record, not a dashboard. Its findings are as of the date above. Where one moves, this post is corrected in place with a dated line here — never edited silently.
Corrected 14 October 2026: Otter.ai was listed alone under “the terms can be read either way”. Vannus has since ruled that its terms forbid a scripted read (they license the service “solely for your personal, non-commercial use”), so it moves to the first row, which now names 12.

Scope. This post describes Vannus’s own records and how they were checked. It is not legal advice. Vannus is operated by PRAXIS AI LLC.