diff --git a/org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/PRE_REGISTRATION.md b/org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/PRE_REGISTRATION.md
index df848dd8..c7afaee8 100644
--- a/org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/PRE_REGISTRATION.md
+++ b/org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/PRE_REGISTRATION.md
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ new dated entry under "Amendments," never an edit to what was registered.
   v1.0. A substantial change to the consent, the study design, or the protocol requires a Research
   Progress & Review Form to the IRB before fielding.
 - **Field site.** Hult Cohort Program, Fall 2026 cohort.
-- **Design registered on.** `<COMMIT DATE — set by the commit that lands this file>`, before Wave 1 opens.
+- **Design registered on.** 2026-09-08 (landed on `main` in commit `05f49e8`, PR #728; the file has not changed since), before Wave 1 opens. [Placeholder filled by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, from the git history.]
 - **Waves.** W1 baseline (before week 1); W2 (week 4, after the first build-and-review cycle); W3 (end of
   session, week 16).
 - **Population.** All enrolled participants; voluntary; not a condition of enrollment or assessment.
diff --git a/submissions/CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md b/submissions/CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..155c099b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md
@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+# Build plan for the CFP arms after *Organization Science* AI-Enabled Frontiers
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026. A plan for the author's ruling, written from each arm's README,
+CFP digest and FLAGS, the 26 Oct cross-arm audit, CALENDAR.md and the OT arm's rules. Nothing here
+has been started. Claude does not submit; the author's read-aloud is the last gate on every arm.]
+
+## Scope
+
+The 26 Oct batch in [`README.md`](README.md#calls-for-papers-opened-26-oct-2026-by-due-date) lists
+nineteen arms by due date. This plan covers the fourteen that follow the *Organization Science*
+AI-Enabled Frontiers entry (1 Nov), plus the SASE Network J fallback (16 Dec), which only matters
+if the MC09 abstract is not sent on 1 Nov. FAccT, ECIS, ILPC, SASE MC09 and the *Organization
+Science* methods proposal are out of scope.
+
+Every arm today holds the same five files: a CFP digest, an abstract, a premise/premise/conclusion
+argument, an outline and a flags list. None has a paper. The work that remains is the same for each:
+verify the call, settle the shared rulings, card the sources the flags name, draft to the outline,
+audit citations and overlap, then hand the author a read-aloud copy. The *Organization Theory* paper
+([`algorithmacy_ot/`](algorithmacy_ot/), target 31 Dec) is the root of most of these arms, and its
+timeline governs theirs.
+
+## The fourteen arms, with a recommendation
+
+| # | Due | Arm | Deliverable | Size | Recommendation |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 15 Nov 2026 | [`algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/`](algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/) | 300–500-word abstract; 4,000–6,000-word paper after acceptance | S | **Go.** The abstract body is 390 words, within the cap; confirm the date, submit. |
+| 2 | 15 Nov 2026 | [`jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/`](jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/) | Full paper, length unknown | L | **Hold.** A full paper in nineteen days, across ALGOCON and the *Slacker* final, at a lower-tier venue. Keep the angle (operator plus principal) for a later call. |
+| 3 | 15 Dec 2026 | [`spm2027_lived_arbiter/`](spm2027_lived_arbiter/) | 150–250-word abstract plus 50–100-word biography | S | **Go if virtual.** Cheap to write; the cost is fees and Mexico City. The author writes the biography. |
+| 4 | 16 Dec 2026 | [`sase2027_platform_cooptation/`](sase2027_platform_cooptation/) Network J | About 1,000-word abstract | S | **Conditional.** Only if MC09 is not sent on 1 Nov. The abstract body is 841 words; about 1,000 are expected. |
+| 5 | 31 Dec 2026 (rolling) | [`cepe2027_third_party_accountability/`](cepe2027_third_party_accountability/) | 600–800-word abstract by email; 5,000-word paper only for the journal route | S | **Go, early.** Rolling review rewards an early send. Target the first week of December, before the OT push. |
+| 6 | 12 Jan 2027 | [`euram2027_algorithmacy/`](euram2027_algorithmacy/) | Full paper, 10–40 pages, plus 400-word abstract | M | **Dropped by default (ruling g).** The paper is the OT paper condensed, and an OT acceptance before June 2027 would breach EURAM's rule. Reopens only if the author accepts the risk. |
+| 7 | 15 Jan 2027 | [`egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/`](egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/) | Short paper, length unconfirmed (usually about 3,000 words) | M | **Go, one of two.** Ruling f picks sub-theme 64 or the author's sub-theme 03 draft. Only one short paper per main author. |
+| 8 | 31 Jan 2027 | [`isj_future_of_work_design/`](isj_future_of_work_design/) | Full journal paper, length unknown | L | **Conditional on a browser read of the call.** January is the heaviest month; see the schedule. |
+| 9 | 31 Jan 2027 | [`io_hype_ai_literacy/`](io_hype_ai_literacy/) | Full journal paper, length unknown | L | **Hold unless the PDW confirms the call.** The hype literature is uncarded and the call is aggregator-only. |
+| 10 | unconfirmed | [`io_algorithmic_assemblages/`](io_algorithmic_assemblages/) | Stub | — | **Drop** unless a browser read of ScienceDirect 325053 shows an open deadline. |
+| 11 | 1 Feb 2027 | [`orgsci_agency_triad/`](orgsci_agency_triad/) | Full journal paper; format in the blocked INFORMS PDF | L | **Go. The priority journal arm.** Top venue, spine-aligned (competence × standing), accelerated review, many desk rejects. Must be complete and sharp at submission. |
+| 12 | 1 Mar 2027 | [`misqe_delegation_triads/`](misqe_delegation_triads/) | MISQE Insight, 1,800–3,500 words | M | **Go as an Insight.** Short, rests on the documentation corpus already in the lab. Conflict-of-interest disclosure required. |
+| 13 | 3 May 2027 | [`jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/`](jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/) | Full paper, 10,000–13,000 words all-inclusive; 200-word abstract | L | **Go.** Long lead; draft March to April after the OT and *Organization Science* pushes. |
+| 14 | 30 Jun 2027 | [`sij_service_triad_ethics/`](sij_service_triad_ethics/) | Full paper, length unknown | L | **Go.** Draws on the 162-card hospitality library. Draft May to June. |
+| 15 | 1–27 Aug 2027 | [`perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/`](perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/) | Empirical paper on the three-wave panel | L | **Go only with data.** Wave 3 falls around mid-December 2026 if the Hult cohort fielded in September. Confirm wave 1 opened. |
+
+Size: S is an abstract the existing draft already covers; M is a short paper or condensation under
+4,000 words; L is a full journal or conference paper.
+
+**Load, if every "go" and "conditional" proceeds:** five abstracts, three short pieces, five full
+papers, on top of the OT paper (31 Dec, the author's target), the *Organization Theory* STS
+(31 Jan, binding) and the FAccT full paper (3 Nov, out of scope here). The five full papers cluster
+in January and the dissertation is the governing commitment, so the schedule below staggers them and
+names where a drop is cheapest.
+
+## Rulings that gate drafting
+
+The 26 Oct audit lists eight rulings (a–h). None is resolved. Each is needed before the first full
+paper is drafted, because the same claim cannot be a contribution in two arms.
+
+| Ruling | Decides | Blocks |
+|---|---|---|
+| a | Who owns the three-place forum claim | CEPE (FAccT owns the audit tests) |
+| b | Who owns competence plus collective voice | SASE Network J (ILPC already submitted) |
+| c | Who owns competence plus standing | *Organization Science* Agency (vs Exetasis) |
+| d | One vocabulary for the three facets | *Personnel Psychology*, the codebook; ECIS is already submitted with its wording |
+| e | One home each for the moral crumple zone, the two failure modes, the Selznick reversal | CEPE, *Organization Science* Agency, EGOS 64, EURAM, SASE |
+| f | EGOS sub-theme 03 or 64 | EGOS |
+| g | Accept or reject the EURAM concurrency risk | EURAM |
+| h | How every spinoff cites the OT paper while it is under blind review | all |
+
+Proposed defaults, for the author to confirm or overturn in one sitting (recorded as working
+defaults in [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md)): (a) CEPE owns the logical
+form, FAccT the audits, as the audit already splits them. (b) SASE owns the four features. (c)
+*Organization Science* Agency owns standing at the organizational level; Exetasis keeps democratic
+sovereignty. (d) The OT vocabulary (interpreting, specifying intent, tracking) wins, and the codebook
+is relabelled. (e) The crumple zone to CEPE, the two failure modes to OT with EGOS 64 citing them, the
+Selznick reversal to SASE. (f) Sub-theme 64, because it asks the rules-of-play question directly. (g)
+Reject the EURAM risk unless the OT decision timeline makes acceptance before June 2027 implausible.
+(h) Cite as "Author (under review)" in anonymized versions and as the OT working paper where the
+venue is not blind.
+
+## The common build pipeline
+
+Each arm walks the same six stages. The per-arm sections below name only what is specific to it.
+
+1. **Verify the call in a browser.** Eight arms rest on a blocked or aggregator-only page: *ISJ*,
+   *I&O* Hype, *I&O* Assemblages, the *Organization Science* Agency INFORMS PDF, *Personnel
+   Psychology* (Wiley), the *JITCAR* and *SIJ* author instructions, the EGOS short-paper PDF, and the
+   AlgorLit date (page says 15 Nov, calendar link says 15 Oct). Record each read in the arm's
+   `cfp/README.md` with the date, and fix length, format and prior-publication rules there.
+2. **Settle the rulings** above that touch the arm.
+3. **Card the sources** the FLAGS name as missing or abstract-depth, in
+   `lima_pdw/literature/cards/` or the arm's own `literature/`, at full-text depth before any
+   quotation. The OT arm's `CITATION_DEPTH.md` rule applies: quotable only at full text.
+4. **Draft to the outline.** Abstracts are finalized in `ABSTRACT.md`; papers go in a new
+   `PAPER.md`, mirroring [`ecis2027_algorithmacy_is/`](ecis2027_algorithmacy_is/) (PAPER.md,
+   `figures/` with a generating script). Anything Claude writes is marked as Claude's draft.
+5. **Audit.** A tiered citation audit against the cards, a claim check sentence by sentence, the
+   FLOW_AND_COHESION self-check, and an overlap check against the audit's split table and the OT
+   manuscript. Prose findings are recorded, not applied; the author rules.
+6. **Hand off and record.** The author reads aloud and submits. On submission, update the arm's
+   README status, `CALENDAR.md`, `README.md` and `NOW.md`, and freeze the sent text as
+   `*_SUBMITTED.md`.
+
+## Shared research tasks
+
+Card these once and share them, since several arms lean on each. Each is listed with the arms that
+need it.
+
+| Source | Needed by | Why |
+|---|---|---|
+| Fradkin, Grewal & Holtz (2021), Airbnb simultaneous reveal | JMS, SIJ | Central to a section in each; no card. |
+| Bolton, Greiner & Ockenfels (2013), reciprocal reviewing | EGOS 64, JMS | Only the 2009 discussion paper is carded. |
+| Burrell (2016), full text | ISJ, SPM, EURAM | Carries a premise at abstract depth in each. |
+| Simmel, the arbitrator and the chosen third | SPM, CEPE, EGOS 64, ISJ | Each arm must mark that platforms are not chosen; one card settles the page. |
+| Hinds & von Krogh, AI-drafted appraisal | JITCAR, *Organization Science* Agency | Conjecture; every use must say "may". |
+| Orlikowski & Scott (2014), TripAdvisor | JMS | The OT claim check found the OT sentences overstated. |
+| Postphenomenology (Ihde, Verbeek) | SPM | The audience will expect it. |
+| Hype and expectations (Borup et al. 2006, van Lente) | *I&O* Hype | Uncarded; van Lente is a guest editor. |
+| Pettit, non-domination; Emirbayer & Mische (1998); Murray, Rhymer & Sirmon (2021) | *Organization Science* Agency | Murray is a guest editor; none is read. |
+| Bovens (2007), the page for the definition | CEPE, FAccT | Paraphrase only so far. |
+| Okhuysen & Bechky (2009), pp. 483–490 | EURAM | The conditions are not on p. 463. |
+| Tong et al. (2021); Waardenburg et al. (2022); Lebovitz et al. (2022), full text | JITCAR | Abstract depth or no card. |
+
+## Per-arm plan
+
+### 1. AlgorLit 2027 (15 Nov, 23:59 Madrid)
+
+Exists: abstract (390 words, within the 300–500 range), argument, outline. Verify: the date, in a browser;
+if the calendar link is right the call closed on 15 Oct. Research: check each literacy definition
+carded (Dogruel 2021, DeVito 2021, Oeldorf-Hirsch & Neubaum 2023, Gagrčin 2026) for whether it names
+a second person; that reading is the "Results" the template asks for and it is the author's claim.
+Build: the abstract already carries the four required headings (Objectives, Methodology, Results,
+Contribution) and five keywords, and names no author; the remaining work is the author's read-aloud. Decision:
+submit by 13 Nov. Paper (4,000–6,000 words) only after the 15 Jan notification; card Wilkinson,
+Olson and Goody & Watt then.
+
+### 2. *JITCAR* (15 Nov)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the author instructions (UTCA) for length and article
+types; the journal may want a case. Research: Tong et al. 2021, the two full texts above. Build: a
+full paper in nineteen days across ALGOCON and the *Slacker* final is not realistic without dropping
+something else. Recommendation: hold. If the author overrules, draft §1–§3 from the outline in the
+week of 9 Nov and accept a thin first version. Overlap caution: the OT conclusion already names
+hiring, appraisal and peer collaboration as triadic; the contribution here is the allocation
+framework.
+
+### 3. SPM2027 (15 Dec)
+
+Exists: abstract (185 words, within the 150–250 range), argument, outline. Verify: nothing blocked. Research:
+card Ihde and Verbeek; re-read Jhaver et al. 2018 and Eslami et al. 2019 for the exact wording the
+flags question. Build: the abstract names its framework (Simmel's third); the author writes the 50–100-word
+biography. Decision: go if the author will present
+virtually or travel. Submit on EasyChair by 10 Dec.
+
+### 4. SASE Network J (16 Dec), fallback only
+
+Exists: abstract (824 words), argument, 7-section outline. Build: lengthen the abstract to about
+1,000 words. Rulings b and e apply. Skip entirely if MC09 goes out on 1 Nov; SASE bars the same paper
+in two homes.
+
+### 5. CEPE 2027 (31 Dec, rolling)
+
+Exists: abstract (621 words, within the 600–800 range), argument, outline. Verify: nothing blocked. Research:
+Bovens's page; Herzberger and Burch on the conditions of Peirce's reduction thesis; the Katsh & Rifkin
+"fourth party" wording; convert Lyons's and Kroll's arXiv pages. Build: the abstract is within range, APA,
+and names no author. Rulings a and e apply. Decision: send by email in the first week of
+December so the rolling review sees it before the OT push. The 5,000-word paper (15 Mar) is only for
+the journal route; decide that after the 31 Jan notification, since it would publish the forum
+argument first.
+
+### 6. EURAM 2027 (12 Jan, 14:00 Brussels)
+
+Exists: abstract (368 words, under the cap), argument, condensation outline. Verify: the platform
+opens late November; check *Organization Theory*'s policy on prior conference presentation. Research:
+Okhuysen & Bechky pages. Build: condense the OT manuscript to 10–40 double-spaced pages for ST09_03,
+anonymized, with the deskilling paragraph rewritten rather than reused. Ruling g gates the arm;
+submitting also commits the author to review two papers. Working default: dropped (see
+[`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md)). If the author overrules by 30 Nov, condense
+in the first week of January, after the OT draft is frozen.
+
+### 7. EGOS 2027 sub-theme 64 (15 Jan, 12:00 CET)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the short-paper length in the guidelines PDF; whether
+review is blind, which decides "the author calls" versus "this paper calls". Research: Bolton et al.
+2013 (for the full paper, not the short one); confirm the Eliane Bucher 2021 reading. Build: the
+short paper, around 3,000 words if the usual cap holds, built on the convenors' question with
+anticipatory compliance as the new evidence and the two failure modes cited to OT. Ruling f decides
+between this and the sub-theme 03 Google Doc; the working default is sub-theme 64, compared side by
+side in [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md). Decision: confirm f by 30 Nov; draft in the second week of
+December or the first week of January.
+
+### 8. *ISJ* (31 Jan, unverified)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the Wiley call page in a browser for date, editors,
+length and article types; nothing else proceeds until then. Research: Burrell 2016, Ananny & Crawford
+2018, DeVito et al. 2017 at full text. Build: a full paper on three design properties (provenance
+cues, dual address, change notice) with propositions, citing Spaces in the Stream as the author's
+working paper. The contribution must not restate OT's "situated competence" shift. Decision: January
+holds the OT STS (binding), EURAM, EGOS and *Organization Science* Agency. If the call is confirmed,
+this is the cheapest full paper to drop. Draft only if *Organization Science* Agency is on track by
+15 Jan.
+
+### 9. *I&O* Hype Studies (31 Jan, unverified)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the ScienceDirect call and the late-2026 online PDW; the
+PDW is the test of fit. Research: the hype and expectations literature, the AI-literacy market
+(UNESCO and OECD documents, read directly rather than through Kamperman & Graff), Ng et al. 2021 at
+full text. Build: a full paper only if the PDW accepts the abstract. The tension with OT's "handing
+books to people who cannot read" image must be addressed in §1. Decision: hold unless the PDW
+confirms. If the PDW runs in November or December, send the abstract; otherwise drop.
+
+### 10. *I&O* Algorithmic Assemblages (unconfirmed)
+
+Stub. Verify: ScienceDirect 325053 in a browser. If closed, mark the folder dropped in its README and
+in `README.md`. If a new deadline exists, open an angle ("assemblages as triads," field level) distinct
+from *Organization Science* Agency and *I&O* Hype, and schedule it then.
+
+### 11. *Organization Science* Agency in the Age of AI (1 Feb; portal opens 2 Nov)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the INFORMS PDF (the newer version linked from the
+18 Oct post) for length, format, timezone and prior-publication rules. Research: Pettit, Emirbayer &
+Mische, Murray et al. 2021, Faraj; engage Stelmaszak et al.'s rejection of "counterpart" (p. 351).
+Rulings c and e apply. Build: the full paper on competence × standing, with the three practices as a
+summary cited to OT under review. This is the arm most worth the author's own prose; the OT arm's
+rule 1 (Claude edits, the author writes) should carry over. Decision: go. Draft §2–§4 in December
+alongside the OT finish, §5–§6 and the audit in January, read-aloud by 25 Jan.
+
+### 12. *MISQE* Insight (1 Mar)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: nothing blocked. Research: re-pin every documentation
+claim to a version number and date against the current Claude Code files; the send-now key
+(v2.1.275) changed earlier wording. Build: an Insight of 1,800–3,500 words resting on agent autonomy
+(proceeding alone, timing out, asking less), vignettes marked hypothetical or replaced with
+documented cases, a conflict-of-interest disclosure for Claude's role. Keep "organizational
+capability" out; it belongs to *JITCAR*. Decision: go. Draft in the first two weeks of February.
+
+### 13. *JMS* Organizing Truth (3 May)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: nothing blocked; an AI-use declaration is required.
+Research: Orlikowski & Scott 2014, Fradkin et al. 2021, Espeland & Sauder, Martin 2019, Kornberger
+et al. 2017, Bolton et al. 2013 journal version. Build: 10,000–13,000 words all-inclusive on
+epistemic arbitration and counter-records, with a 200-word abstract and alphabetical keywords. No
+"standing" (owned by *Organization Science* Agency). Decision: go. Card in February, draft March to
+mid-April, audit and read-aloud in the last two weeks of April.
+
+### 14. *SIJ* (30 Jun)
+
+Exists: abstract, argument, outline. Verify: the author instructions (FSIJ) for length. Research:
+Fradkin et al. 2021, Fink 2025 journal version paired with Sterz 2024, a source for hotel-internal
+systems, Lin et al. 2026. Build: the break-point × mechanism framework with new cases (Edelman,
+Zervas, Fink), no interface features (owned by *ISJ*), no OT wording. Decision: go. Draft May to
+mid-June from the hospitality library.
+
+### 15. *Personnel Psychology* (1–27 Aug)
+
+Exists: planned-study abstract, argument, outline; the instrument, pre-registration, codebook and
+analysis plan in `org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/`. Verify: the Wiley page for format;
+whether wave 1 opened. Research: none external; the work is the panel. Build, in order: fix the
+pre-registration inconsistency (three Zhou subscales, Remediating omitted) and the placeholder commit
+date before wave 2; revise the items that name only "a tool or system" so each names the counterpart
+and the system together, if wave 1 has not opened; file the Research Progress & Review Form before
+wave 2; decide on a second sample (GauntleTT, which needs its own IRB) given a cohort in the tens.
+Ruling d fixes the facet vocabulary. Write "hypotheses fixed before data collection", never
+"pre-registered". Decision: go only with three waves in hand. Analysis February to March, draft June
+to July, submit in the August window.
+
+## Schedule
+
+The schedule assumes the OT paper takes most of December and the *Organization Theory* STS is
+binding on 31 Jan. It also keeps the governing principle in view: the dissertation comes first, and
+every arm here is a detour from Paper 1 unless it reuses prose already written for the dissertation.
+
+| Window | Work |
+|---|---|
+| 27 Oct – 1 Nov | Out-of-scope crunch (FAccT, ALGOCON, *Slacker*, SASE MC09, *Organization Science* methods). In scope, only stage 1: the eight browser verifications, recorded in each `cfp/README.md`. |
+| 2 – 8 Nov | Rulings a–h confirmed or overturned in one sitting (working defaults in [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md)). AlgorLit abstract read aloud. *JITCAR* go/hold. |
+| 9 – 15 Nov | AlgorLit submitted by 13 Nov. If *JITCAR* is a go, its §1–§3. |
+| 16 – 30 Nov | Shared cards (Simmel, Burrell, Bovens, Fradkin, Bolton). Rulings f and g confirmed. SPM and CEPE abstracts read aloud. *I&O* Hype PDW sent or dropped. |
+| 1 – 15 Dec | CEPE emailed (first week). SPM submitted by 10 Dec. *Organization Science* Agency §2–§4 in the author's prose. OT paper is the main work. |
+| 16 – 31 Dec | SASE Network J if MC09 was missed. EGOS short paper drafted. OT paper frozen 31 Dec. *Personnel Psychology* wave 3 closes around mid-December; export the data. |
+| 1 – 15 Jan | EURAM condensation (if g is go), submitted 12 Jan. EGOS submitted 15 Jan. *Organization Science* Agency §5–§6. |
+| 16 – 31 Jan | *Organization Theory* STS (binding, 31 Jan). *Organization Science* Agency audit and read-aloud, submitted 1 Feb. *ISJ* only if confirmed and the Agency paper is on track; otherwise dropped. |
+| Feb | *MISQE* Insight drafted and submitted by 1 Mar. *JMS* cards. *Personnel Psychology* analysis. |
+| Mar – Apr | *JMS* drafted, audited, submitted 3 May. |
+| May – Jun | *SIJ* drafted from the hospitality library, submitted 30 Jun. |
+| Jun – Aug | *Personnel Psychology* drafted, submitted in the 1–27 Aug window. |
+
+Where the load is too much, drop in this order: *I&O* Hype, *JITCAR*, *ISJ*, EURAM, SPM. Each is
+either unverified, lower-tier, or a restatement of the OT paper. Do not drop *Organization Science*
+Agency, *JMS* or *Personnel Psychology*; those three are the venues where the construct is worth the
+most, and the last one is the only empirical test of the scale.
+
+## What Claude can run without the author
+
+Stage 1 verifications need a browser the author controls, so they are the author's. Everything in
+stage 3 (carding), the length checks on the five abstracts, and the stage 5 audits are Claude's to
+run on request. Drafting full papers follows the OT arm's rule 1: the author writes, Claude
+edits, and anything Claude drafts is marked.
+
+## Records to update when an arm moves
+
+`CALENDAR.md` (the row and the "Binding?" column), [`README.md`](README.md) (the two tables),
+[`../NOW.md`](../NOW.md) (the next-dates table, which stops at 31 Jan today), and the arm's own README
+status line. The 26 Oct audit's "Decisions by date" table should gain the rulings f and g dates
+(30 Nov) once the author confirms them.
+
+## Run log
+
+**27 Oct 2026.** Stages 1 to 3 were run from the cloud session, which the environment's network
+policy confines to search-engine snippets: every publisher, conference and repository host is denied.
+What landed, all on branch `submissions/cfp-build-plan-2026-10-27`:
+
+- Stage 1: eleven `cfp/README.md` files carry a dated verification section. Snippet-level findings:
+  EGOS short papers run about 3,000 words including references and are not blind-reviewed; the
+  INFORMS page opens the *Organization Science* Agency portal on 1 Nov; the *I&O* Assemblages call
+  shows 31 Jan 2027 on the journal's own index; AlgorLit's own pages disagree (15 Oct, 15 Nov);
+  *Personnel Psychology* shows 31 Aug on Wiley against 27 Aug on ANZAM. Length limits for *JITCAR*,
+  *SIJ*, *ISJ*, *Organization Science* Agency and *Personnel Psychology* still need a browser.
+- Stage 2: [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md) holds a working default for each
+  of a–h. EURAM is dropped by default; EGOS defaults to sub-theme 64.
+- Stage 3: fifteen cards written or annotated in `lima_pdw/literature/cards/`, none above abstract or
+  secondary depth. Each names the open copy to read once access exists. Two full-text cards already
+  in the repo cover Burrell 2016 and Eslami 2019. Two abstract-level findings are flagged in the SIJ
+  and JMS arms (Fradkin 2021; Orlikowski & Scott 2014).
+- The abstract word counts in the table above were corrected; no abstract needs cutting.
+
+**Blocked on the author:** the browser verifications; the rulings sitting; either widening the
+environment's network access to the scholarly hosts or dropping PDFs into
+`lima_pdw/literature/pdfs/` so the cards can reach full text; the SPM biography; confirmation that
+survey wave 1 opened.
diff --git a/submissions/CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md b/submissions/CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d1cfd6a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# CFP fit review of the fifteen arms after *Organization Science* AI-Enabled Frontiers
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026. Each arm's abstract, argument and outline were read against the
+verbatim lines in its `cfp/README.md` (as digested 26 Oct and annotated 27 Oct). Where an abstract
+failed to answer a line the call names, or missed a required element, a targeted edit was made to
+the Claude draft and recorded here and in the file's header. No author prose was touched. The author's
+read-aloud remains the last gate.]
+
+## Summary
+
+| Arm | Fit before | Edit made | Still open |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| AlgorLit 2027 | Good. Four required headings, five keywords, no author name. Engages the field's own definitions. | README names the thematic area to select (01; 03 secondary). | The 15 Oct / 15 Nov date. |
+| *JITCAR* | Partial. Addressed accountability and contestability; did not answer the call's line on how organizations *assess* the consequences of AI-enabled decisions under institutional constraints and incentives. | One sentence rewritten to answer that line. | A case journal may want a case; length unknown. |
+| SPM2027 | Good. Names opacity as lived, Simmel as framework, anxiety; abstract within 150–250. | README names Axis 1 (Axis 2 for the affect line). | Biography; postphenomenology card is secondary depth. |
+| SASE (Network J) | Good for MC09, which it names. Network J's own language (participatory evaluation systems, digital reputations) was not used. | A Network J closing supplied as an alternate. | Route choice. |
+| CEPE 2027 | Good. Accountability and AI-mediated systems; power and responsibility; APA; 600–800 words. | None. | Rolling review: send early. |
+| EURAM 2027 | Partial. The implications paragraph spoke to "OB and HRM" without the track's words (job quality, autonomy, fairness, transparency, accountability). | Implications paragraph now names job quality, autonomy and fairness. | Dropped by default under ruling g. |
+| EGOS sub-theme 64 | Strong. Opens on the convenors' question, closes on humanness and connection. Did not touch their "bending, hacking, or resisting" line. Outline budgeted 3,000 words of body, but the 2027 guidelines put references inside the 3,000. | Practices tied to bending rules one did not write. Outline rebudgeted to 2,500 body plus references. | Sub-theme 03 versus 64 (default 64). |
+| *ISJ* | Partial. Uses the call's "human–machine–institution interface"; did not address workers' voice and agency. | One sentence connects the three properties to voice through the system. | Call page unread; length and types unknown. |
+| *I&O* Hype | Good. Producers and certifiers map onto "intermediaries and the infrastructure of hype"; mandates onto governance. | One sentence maps the four questions onto the call's three fronts. | Call seen only on an aggregator; PDW date. |
+| *I&O* Assemblages | No abstract (stub). | None. | If the 31 Jan 2027 date on the journal index is real, the arm needs an abstract on assemblages as triads, interpretive and field-level, per the stub's README. |
+| *Organization Science* Agency | Strong. Opens on "who acts", answers the call's accountability and competence-reassignment lines, avoids general commentary. | Closing sentence uses the call's "production of action". | INFORMS PDF unread; portal opens 1 Nov. |
+| *MISQE* | Good. Rests on agent autonomy, so it passes the substitution test; practitioner checklist. | Practices framed as intervention points for agents acting with limited supervision. | Evidence is product documentation (Insight route); conflict-of-interest disclosure. |
+| *JMS* | Partial. Truth and arbitration answered the call's mediation line; polarization and blame games, both in the call's title or text, were absent from the abstract. | Two clauses added; abstract now 199 words. | Cards at abstract depth only; AI-use declaration. |
+| *SIJ* | Strong. Black-box verdicts, human oversight, transparency and customer contestation all answered. "Service failures", the call's object, was not named. | One phrase names responsibility for service failures. | Fradkin 2021 caution (FLAGS 9); length unknown. |
+| *Personnel Psychology* | Weak on the call's defining term. The call is about the lived experience of *generative* AI at work. The abstract asserts that generative AI drafts appraisals and gates work, but the registered study (`org_frontier/survey/cohort_algorithmacy/STUDY.md`) describes a developer cohort coordinating through platforms it builds and a peer-review gate, and never mentions generative AI. | None. A text edit cannot supply the setting. | See below. |
+
+## *Personnel Psychology*: the setting has to show generative AI
+
+The abstract cannot be made to fit by wording. Three routes, for the author:
+
+1. **Add a generative-AI block to the protocol before wave 2.** If participants build with coding
+   agents and generative tools (likely in an AI engineering cohort, but not recorded in the study),
+   measure that use at waves 2 and 3 and report it as the setting's generative-AI exposure. This
+   needs the Research Progress & Review Form the pre-registration already anticipates.
+2. **Use the GauntleTT cohort**, which the Lima abstract describes as an AI engineering program, as
+   the sample or a second sample. It needs its own IRB.
+3. **Retarget.** Without generative AI in the setting, the scale paper fits a general measurement
+   venue better than this special issue.
+
+Until one is chosen, the abstract's first two sentences are claims about the world, not about the
+study, and a reviewer will read them as such.
+
+## What was checked for every arm
+
+Required elements (length, headings, keywords, anonymity), the call's verbatim topic lines, the
+venue's audience and genre (case journal, executive journal, phenomenology society), and whether the
+abstract names the call's object in the call's own words at least once without quoting the call.
+Overlap between arms was not re-audited; the 26 Oct audit's split table stands.
diff --git a/submissions/CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md b/submissions/CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4a94288f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Working defaults for the eight CFP rulings
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026. The 26 Oct audit named eight rulings (a–h) that gate drafting across
+the CFP arms. The author has not ruled. To let the carding and verification work proceed, each ruling
+below is taken as a **working default**. A default binds nothing. Where the author's ruling differs,
+the arms listed under "Arms affected" need their ABSTRACT, ARGUMENT and OUTLINE re-read against the
+new ownership. Record the author's rulings in this file, dated, and strike the default.]
+
+| # | Ruling | Working default | Arms affected | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| a | Three-place forum claim | CEPE owns the logical form (Peirce, Simmel, Bovens). FAccT owns the two audit tests (joint contest of one verdict; explanations that separate the counterpart's input from the rule's). | CEPE, FAccT | default |
+| b | Competence plus collective voice | ILPC (submitted 26 Oct) owns the frontier of control and the counterpart as ally. SASE owns the four features, stratification and the masking effect. | SASE Network J | default |
+| c | Competence plus standing | *Organization Science* Agency owns standing at the organizational level. Exetasis owns democratic sovereignty. | *Organization Science* Agency, Exetasis | default |
+| d | One vocabulary for the three facets | The OT paper's wording wins: interpreting, specifying intent, tracking. The codebook's counterpart inference, signal compression and rule-change tracking are relabelled at the next codebook edit, with the old labels kept as aliases so the fielded instrument is unchanged. ECIS went out on 26 Oct with its own wording and is not reopened. | *Personnel Psychology*, codebook | default |
+| e | One home each for three motifs | Moral crumple zone: CEPE. The two failure modes (pacifying the algorithm; treating the system as a neutral channel): the OT paper, cited by EGOS 64 and EURAM, not restated. Selznick reversal: SASE. | CEPE, *Organization Science* Agency, EGOS 64, EURAM, ILPC, SASE | default |
+| f | EGOS sub-theme 03 or 64 | Sub-theme 64. See the comparison below. | EGOS | default |
+| g | EURAM concurrency | Reject the risk unless the OT decision timeline makes acceptance before 22 June 2027 implausible. The OT paper is targeted for submission 31 Dec 2026; a first decision before June is plausible at that journal, and EURAM bars papers "published or accepted for publication" before the conference. Default: EURAM is dropped unless the author accepts the risk or chooses a different paper for ST09_03. | EURAM | default |
+| h | Citing the OT paper under blind review | In anonymized submissions: "Author (under review)" in text and a reference-list entry "Author. (under review). Details withheld for blind review." In non-blind submissions and abstracts sent by email: "Hunt (under review), *Organization Theory*." Never a preprint, working-paper link or Google Doc. | every spinoff | default |
+
+## Ruling f: the two EGOS drafts side by side
+
+The author's Google Doc "Algorithmacy - EGOS Short Paper Submission" (modified 11 Oct 2026) targets
+sub-theme 03 (Hyper-Real). The repo arm [`egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/`](egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/)
+targets sub-theme 64 (Rage Against the Digital Machine). EGOS allows one short paper per main author.
+
+| | Sub-theme 03 draft (Google Doc) | Sub-theme 64 arm (repo) |
+|---|---|---|
+| State | Full short paper: abstract, introduction, two sections, three practices, discussion, 20 references. About 1,500 words of body. | Abstract (about 330 words), P/P/C argument, outline. No paper. |
+| Question answered | How workers coordinate when a hyperreal system (simulation, digital twin, predictive model) evaluates them. | The convenors' own question: who sets the rules of play, and what keeps human connection alive. |
+| Fit to the sub-theme text | Hyperreality is carried by Baudrillard and Baskerville et al.'s "ontological reversal"; the triad is the paper's own frame, and the simulation motif sits on top of it. | The sub-theme's call names opaque algorithms, rules of play, bending and resisting, and human connection. The arm answers those lines directly. |
+| New evidence | None beyond the OT paper; it restates the three practices with the OT paper's cases. | Anticipatory compliance (Bucher, Schou & Waldkirch 2021) as new evidence for the first failure mode; the Simmel mediator/arbitrator contrast. |
+| Overlap with the OT paper | High. The three practices, the dyadic-inheritance critique and the Fuller & Smith / Lopez lineage are all the OT paper's. | Medium. The two failure modes are the OT paper's and are cited to it (ruling e); the connection argument is new. |
+| Risk | A reviewer who later reads the OT paper finds the same paper twice. "AI Disclosure" header names AI use; fine for EGOS, but the hyperreal framing is thin in the body. | The short paper is unwritten; the length cap is unverified. |
+
+Default: sub-theme 64. The convenors ask the question the construct answers, and the sub-theme 03 draft
+would be the OT paper under a hyperreal heading. The sub-theme 03 draft keeps one asset the arm should
+take: its reference list is already checked against the Lima library, and Karunakaran, Orlikowski &
+Scott (2022) on crowd-based accountability is a source the sub-theme 64 outline lacks. If the author
+prefers sub-theme 03, the repo arm is closed and the Google Doc gets the citation audit instead.
+
+## Consequences applied today
+
+None of the defaults changes any ABSTRACT.md. The arms already follow the audit's split table, which the
+defaults confirm. Two records were adjusted:
+
+- [`CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md) treats EURAM as dropped by default
+  (ruling g) and EGOS as sub-theme 64 (ruling f).
+- The plan's abstract word counts were wrong: it counted whole files. Counted on the abstract body
+  alone, AlgorLit is 390 words (cap 500), SPM 185 (cap 250), CEPE 621 (range 600–800) and SASE 841
+  (about 1,000 expected). No cuts are needed; SASE could take 150 more words if Network J is pursued.
diff --git a/submissions/README.md b/submissions/README.md
index 49ef1398..95ac983f 100644
--- a/submissions/README.md
+++ b/submissions/README.md
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ This week's work is listed first in [`../NOW.md`](../NOW.md).
 
 ## Calls for papers opened 26 Oct 2026, by due date
 
-[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026.] Each folder holds a CFP digest, an abstract, a premise/premise/conclusion argument, an outline and a flags list, all marked as Claude's drafts for the author's ruling. Nothing has been submitted. The search behind them is summarised in each `cfp/README.md`. The *Exetasis* arm (20 Dec 2026) is not part of this batch: it moved to a v5.2 abstract with Antonio Scala's plan on its own branch (PR #851). Overlaps, concurrency risks and the rulings needed are in [`CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md`](CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md).
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026.] Each folder holds a CFP digest, an abstract, a premise/premise/conclusion argument, an outline and a flags list, all marked as Claude's drafts for the author's ruling. Nothing has been submitted. The search behind them is summarised in each `cfp/README.md`. The *Exetasis* arm (20 Dec 2026) is not part of this batch: it moved to a v5.2 abstract with Antonio Scala's plan on its own branch (PR #851). Overlaps, concurrency risks and the rulings needed are in [`CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md`](CFP_AUDIT_2026-10-26.md). The research-and-build plan for the arms after the *Organization Science* AI-Enabled Frontiers entry, with a schedule and a drop order, is [`CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_BUILD_PLAN_2026-10-27.md). Working defaults for the eight rulings that gate drafting are in [`CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_RULINGS_2026-10-27.md). A fit review of each arm against its call, with the targeted edits it produced, is [`CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`](CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md).
 
 | Due | Path | Piece |
 | --- | --- | --- |
diff --git a/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/README.md b/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/README.md
index 397f52d3..ca3124cd 100644
--- a/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/README.md
+++ b/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/README.md
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
 | Confirmation | before 1 Mar 2027 |
 | Full paper (4,000–6,000 words) | after acceptance; date not stated |
 
+**Thematic area to select on the form:** 01, Critical algorithmic literacy (primary); 03, Algorithmic governance, if a second can be given. [Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
 **Angle:** algorithmic literacy is defined for a user facing a system, while algorithmacy covers coordinating with a counterpart through it. The literacy myth is a caution.
 
 **Relation to other arms:** draws on [`../berthon_ethics_course/`](../berthon_ethics_course/) (literacy history). It is distinct from [`../io_hype_ai_literacy/`](../io_hype_ai_literacy/), which studies the market for AI-literacy remedies.
diff --git a/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md b/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
index c7b6f2e5..46ead887 100644
--- a/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/algorlit2027_literacy_to_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
@@ -20,3 +20,25 @@
 - "algorithmic literacy emerges as a key competence for understanding, questioning and exercising critical citizenship in digital environments"
 - Thematic area 01: "Critical algorithmic literacy"; "Education and algorithmic awareness".
 - Thematic area 03: "Algorithmic governance"; "Transparency and accountability"; "Platform power and responsibility".
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** This session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403, "connect_rejected"), and WebFetch returned DNS failures (ENOTFOUND) for the same hosts. No page was read directly. Everything below is search-engine snippet text as rendered by the search tool, which is weaker than a page read; it is marked as such.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/key-dates/ — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT tunnel failed, 403 (proxy policy). Failed.
+- Call PDF — not reachable (same host block). Failed.
+- WebSearch (three queries on algorlit AMS 2027 dates) — succeeded; returned snippets of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/ and https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/about/.
+
+**Abstract deadline: 15 Nov or 15 Oct 2026? — still unverified; the conflict is now documented on two of the organizers' own pages.**
+- Snippet of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/ (timeline block; the search index dated it about 131 days old): "15 OCT. 2026" as the abstract submission deadline, glossed as the "deadline to submit your paper or panel proposal".
+- Snippet of https://algorlit.com/en/congress/ams-2027/about/: the "submission deadline is 15 November 2026".
+- The 26 Oct direct read of the key-dates page gave "15 November 2026 · 23:59 Madrid time" with a calendar link encoding 15 October. The 27 Oct snippets reproduce the same split (timeline says October, prose says November). The most recent direct evidence (26 Oct read) is 15 November; the search index is older. Write to the organizers before relying on either.
+
+**Timezone:** "23:59 Madrid time" from the 26 Oct read only; no snippet carried a time. Still unverified by a second source.
+
+**Abstract length:** snippet of the main page says "Submit your abstract (500 words)"; the 26 Oct read of the submission guidelines said "Between 300 and 500 words". Not contradictory (500 is the ceiling).
+
+**Other dates in snippets (consistent with 26 Oct):** notification "15 January 2027"; confirmation "before 1 March 2027"; "Proposals without registration will be withdrawn from the programme."
diff --git a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/ABSTRACT.md
index e48b2af4..48fb97ad 100644
--- a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. EGOS allows one short paper per main author, so this is an alternate. Due 15 Jan 2027, 12:00 CET.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the practices are tied to the convenors' line on bending, hacking or resisting the systems that manage people. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Playing by Rules No One Wrote: Keeping the Counterpart in View Under Algorithmic Mediation
 
 ## Abstract
@@ -9,7 +11,7 @@ The sub-theme asks who sets the rules of play in organizations mediated by opaqu
 
 The argument starts from Simmel's third party. A mediator helps two people settle their own affairs. An arbitrator takes the decision out of their hands. An opaque evaluating system is an arbitrator that neither party chose. Every message one person sends the other is also scored, and every result mixes the other person's judgement with the system's rule. People in this position lose each other in two ways. Some pacify the algorithm, curtailing contact with the counterpart to stay clear of scrutiny. Others treat the system as a neutral channel and read its scores as personal verdicts, missing the rule that judges them both.
 
-Two practices keep the counterpart in view. Specifying intent means writing so that the other person can read what an action meant through the system's filter. Tracking means noticing when the rule has changed, as distinct from a change in the other person. Together these practices are part of what the author calls algorithmacy: the competence to coordinate through an evaluating intermediary. The paper concludes that humanness under algorithmic mediation is not only resistance to the machine. It is also the practical work of reaching another person through a machine that judges both of them.
+Two practices keep the counterpart in view, and both are ways of bending rules one did not write. Specifying intent means writing so that the other person can read what an action meant through the system's filter. Tracking means noticing when the rule has changed, as distinct from a change in the other person. Together these practices are part of what the author calls algorithmacy: the competence to coordinate through an evaluating intermediary. The paper concludes that humanness under algorithmic mediation is not only resistance to the machine. It is also the practical work of reaching another person through a machine that judges both of them.
 
 **Keywords:** algorithmic mediation; humanness; third party; rules; coordination
 
diff --git a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/OUTLINE.md b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/OUTLINE.md
index 07d3353c..acdcd417 100644
--- a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/OUTLINE.md
+++ b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/OUTLINE.md
@@ -1,12 +1,13 @@
-# Outline: EGOS short paper (about 3,000 words; confirm the cap) and full paper (20–25 pages by mid-June 2027)
+# Outline: EGOS short paper (about 3,000 words including references; confirm in the guidelines PDF) and full paper (20–25 pages by mid-June 2027)
 
-[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026.]
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. Rebudgeted 27 Oct 2026: the 2027 guidelines snippet says the 3,000 words include references, so the body is 2,500.]
 
 | § | Section | Short paper | Full paper | Mechanism | Cards |
 |---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| 1 | Who sets the rules | 400 | 1,000 | The system writes and rewrites rules that bind both parties. | `starkvandenbroeck2024`, `kellogg2020`, `rahman2021` (theory only) |
-| 2 | The arbitrator nobody chose | 600 | 1,500 | Simmel's mediator–arbitrator contrast, with the difference that on platforms nobody chose the arbiter. | `simmel1902number2`, `simmel1950sociology` |
-| 3 | Two ways to lose the counterpart | 700 | 2,000 | Pacifying the algorithm; treating it as a channel. | `bucherschouwaldkirch2021`, `jhaver2018algorithmic`, `eslami2019` |
-| 4 | Two ways to keep the counterpart | 800 | 2,500 | Specifying intent and tracking change. Hotel and marketplace cases. | `scottorlikowski2012accountability`, `orlikowskiscott2023`, `curchod2020`, `devito2021` |
-| 5 | Humanness as practical work | 500 | 1,500 | Answers the sub-theme's questions on humanness and rules. | — |
+| 1 | Who sets the rules | 350 | 1,000 | The system writes and rewrites rules that bind both parties. | `starkvandenbroeck2024`, `kellogg2020`, `rahman2021` (theory only) |
+| 2 | The arbitrator nobody chose | 500 | 1,500 | Simmel's mediator–arbitrator contrast, with the difference that on platforms nobody chose the arbiter. | `simmel1902number2`, `simmel1950sociology` |
+| 3 | Two ways to lose the counterpart | 600 | 2,000 | Pacifying the algorithm; treating it as a channel. | `bucherschouwaldkirch2021`, `jhaver2018algorithmic`, `eslami2019` |
+| 4 | Two ways to keep the counterpart | 650 | 2,500 | Specifying intent and tracking change. Hotel and marketplace cases. | `scottorlikowski2012accountability`, `orlikowskiscott2023`, `curchod2020`, `devito2021` |
+| 5 | Humanness as practical work | 400 | 1,500 | Answers the sub-theme's questions on humanness and rules. | — |
+| | References | 500 | — | About fifteen entries. | |
 | | **Total** | **3,000** | **8,500** | | |
diff --git a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/cfp/README.md b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/cfp/README.md
index b30597f8..164fcdab 100644
--- a/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/egos2027_st64_rules_of_play/cfp/README.md
@@ -27,3 +27,22 @@
   - "How do workers, leaders, and algorithms co-construct new rules of the game—bending, hacking, or resisting the systems that seek to manage them?"
   - "How do digital traces, status indicators, or AI analytics redefine what counts as presence, effort, or belonging?"
   - "We welcome conceptual, empirical, and methodological contributions".
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No PDF could be downloaded. Everything below is search-engine snippet text as rendered by the search tool, not a page read.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://www.egos.org/2027_Liverpool/CALL_for_short_papers — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT 403. Failed.
+- Guidelines PDF — not downloadable (host blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, three queries — succeeded. The short-paper guidelines for 2027 surface at https://www.egos.org/jart/prj3/egos/data/colloquium/2027_Liverpool/ST51_Demetry_DiStefano_Forgues.pdf (indexed title: "44th EGOS Colloquium in Liverpool, 2027 Guidelines for short paper submissions", "v1.0, dated 07-Aug-26"). The 2025 guidelines are at https://www.egos.org/jart/prj3/egos/releases/de/upload/Guidelines/EGOS-Colloquia_Submission_SHORT-PAPERS_2025.pdf.
+
+**Word/page limit — found in snippet (2027 guidelines):** "~3.000 words (including references, appendices, and other material)"; another rendering: "about 3,000 words, including references, appendices, and other material". Format in the same snippet: "12-point Arial or Times New Roman, 1.5 line spacing, and APA citations", "PDF file only". Treat as a target rather than a hard cap until the PDF is read; the earlier EGOS wording was "around" 3,000.
+
+**Deadline wording (2027 guidelines snippet):** "Friday, January 15, 2027, at 12:00 CET"; "the deadline is unchangeable; extensions cannot be granted". Matches the 26 Oct read.
+
+**Blind review — still unverified for 2027.** The 2027 guidelines snippet lists "authors' names, affiliations, and email addresses" among the required contents of the short paper. The 2025 guidelines snippet says name, affiliation and email go at the top of the paper because "there is no single- or double-blind peer review", and the 2026 version repeats that wording. The 2027 required-contents list is consistent with no blind review, but the 2027 sentence itself was not seen.
+
+**Discrepancy to note:** the 2027 guidelines PDF title says "44th" Colloquium while the Liverpool call pages say "43rd". Both refer to Liverpool, 8–10 July 2027.
diff --git a/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/ABSTRACT.md
index f297a1c9..d1bd3ae8 100644
--- a/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. The author's own OT abstract (`../algorithmacy_ot/`) may be used instead; this version is written for an OB/HRM track. The limit is 400 words. Due 12 Jan 2027, 14:00 Brussels.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the implications paragraph now names ST09_03's stated concerns (job quality, autonomy, fairness). See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Algorithmacy: The Competence to Coordinate When an Algorithm Judges Both Sides
 
 ## Abstract
@@ -11,7 +13,7 @@ This paper classifies communicative competence by what stands between the people
 
 Algorithmacy is the competence that restores those conditions, and it has three practices. Interpreting ambiguous results restores accountability. Specifying intent so the counterpart can read it through the system restores common understanding. Tracking rule changes the operator does not announce restores predictability. The paper describes two failure modes. In the first, a person collapses the triad into a pair with the machine and ignores the counterpart. In the second, a person treats the system as a neutral channel and ignores its judgement.
 
-For OB and HRM, the argument has three implications. First, simplifying a task through algorithmic management raises its relational demands, so deskilling and the demand for algorithmacy rise together. Second, people subject to the same rules will differ in outcomes according to this competence, which training in AI literacy does not supply. Third, if generative AI enters appraisal, hiring and collaboration, these demands will move from platform work into professional work.
+For research on managing people through algorithms, the argument bears on job quality, autonomy and fairness in three ways. First, simplifying a task through algorithmic management raises its relational demands, so deskilling and the demand for algorithmacy rise together. Second, people subject to the same rules will differ in outcomes according to this competence, a fairness problem that training in AI literacy does not address. Third, if generative AI enters appraisal, hiring and collaboration, these demands will move from platform work into professional work.
 
 **Keywords:** algorithmic management; algorithmacy; coordination; competence; triads
 
diff --git a/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md b/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
index cf726308..b870bdd9 100644
--- a/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/euram2027_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
@@ -32,3 +32,20 @@
 - **ST09_03, "AI, Big Data, Algorithmic Management and Emerging Tech in Managing People"** (Yumei Yang): "Key concerns include impacts on health, job quality, autonomy, and fairness in algorithmic decision-making. Ethical issues surrounding transparency and accountability further complicate adoption."
 - **T09_04, "Distance, Voice and Good Work in Digital Collaboration"** (Sylvia Rohlfer): "We welcome conceptual, empirical, and methodological contributions on cognitive, socio-relational, operational, and engagement-related distances in remote working and collaboration; competence development at different levels".
 - **T09_07, "Human, Artificial, and Organizational Cognition"** (Davide Secchi): "environments where a mix of human and artificial agents can interact but maintain separate individualities".
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- conferences.euram.academy — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/ott — not fetched (same block); surfaced in search snippets.
+- WebSearch, three queries — succeeded.
+
+**Does Organization Theory (SAGE) say anything about papers under journal review being presented at conferences?** Not stated in the snippets. The submission-guidelines snippet (https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/ott) gives: "Accepts preprints? Yes"; "Identity transparency: Double anonymized"; authors confirm at submission that the work is original and "not being considered or already published elsewhere" (that clause concerns other journals, not conferences); preprint citations should be updated to the peer-reviewed version once one exists; the page links to a separate SAGE preprint policy that was not read. Nothing about conference presentation surfaced.
+
+**Does EURAM say anything?** Not stated in the 2027 guidelines (read 26 Oct). The search did surface an older EURAM wording, from the 2024 authors' guidelines (https://conferences.euram.academy/2024conference/authors-guidelines-for-full-papers/), snippet: "submitted papers must NOT have been previously published and if under review, must NOT appear in print before the EURAM 2024 Conference". The 2026 and 2027 wording drops the "if under review" clause and bars papers "published or accepted for publication before the EURAM annual Conference (neither in print nor online, in any form – online preprint, working paper, etc.)". The 2024 snippet also records: a paper "must not have been previously presented at a EURAM annual Conference (unless there are significant changes from the original presented proposal)". Read together, a paper under journal review but neither accepted nor posted as a preprint is within EURAM's stated rule; this is an inference from the 2024 and 2027 texts, not a stated 2027 rule.
+
+**Also confirmed by snippet of the 2027 call:** deadline "12 January 2027, 2 pm Belgian time" (the 26 Oct read had "2.00 pm Brussels time"; same instant).
diff --git a/submissions/io_algorithmic_assemblages/cfp/README.md b/submissions/io_algorithmic_assemblages/cfp/README.md
index e664122d..77b393b8 100644
--- a/submissions/io_algorithmic_assemblages/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/io_algorithmic_assemblages/cfp/README.md
@@ -18,3 +18,22 @@ A ScienceDirect special-issues listing seen in search results on 26 Oct showed 3
 - "Interpretive approaches to algorithmic assemblages"
 - "Relational approaches from organization theory"
 - "The dynamics of algorithmic technologies in organizational ecosystems"
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/325053 — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: blocked. Failed.
+- callsforpapers.org, servicesetu.org — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, two queries — succeeded; snippets of https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/information-and-organization/special-issues, https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/325053/algorithmic-assemblages-fields-ecosystems-and-platforms-an-interpretive-approach, https://www.servicesetu.org/call-for-paper/journals/iando, and the callsforpapers.org listing.
+
+**Closed (15 May 2026) or open to 31 Jan 2027? — still unverified, but the balance moved toward 31 Jan 2027.**
+- Snippet of the journal's own special-issues index (sciencedirect.com/journal/information-and-organization/special-issues): this title with a submission deadline of "31 January 2027", guest editors Timothy Hannigan, P. Devereaux Jennings, Shaila Miranda, Samer Faraj and Mayur Joshi.
+- Aggregator snippets (servicesetu.org, callsforpapers.org) carry the original timeline: "Submission deadline: 15 May 2026", "first-round reviews due 15 September 2026", with the call "published 18 August 2025".
+- One search summary also reported a "15 July 2026" deadline in a separate listing on the same ScienceDirect index page, so the index may show more than one version.
+- No source uses the word "extended". The 31 Jan 2027 date on the journal's own index is the most likely current deadline, but the special-issue page itself was not read. Contact named in snippets for topic fit: Timothy Hannigan.
+
+**Timezone, length, article type:** still unverified.
diff --git a/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/ABSTRACT.md
index cd74f030..f7a88ac6 100644
--- a/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. Due 31 Jan 2027 (aggregator date; verify).]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the research agenda is mapped onto the call's three fronts (intermediaries, adoption and governance, contestation). See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Selling Literacy for a Triadic Problem: AI Literacy as an Organized Remedy
 
 ## Abstract
-Hype attaches to remedies as well as to technologies. Alongside the promises made for generative AI, a second set of promises has grown up around "AI literacy": the claim that people who understand how AI works will be safe, employable and in control. Universities, vendors, consultancies, certification bodies and regulators now produce and mandate AI-literacy programmes. This paper treats that remedy as an object of hype studies. Historians of literacy have shown that print-literacy campaigns promised individual advancement that the social order did not deliver. Recent critics argue that AI-literacy initiatives use literacy uncritically as a metaphor and repeat that promise. We add an organizational argument about the problems the remedy is sold for. Many of them are triadic. A booking platform ranks a hotel on its guests' reviews, a marketplace scores a seller on buyers' ratings, and an AI tool can draft a manager's appraisal of an employee. In each case a system evaluates two people and binds both to its verdict. Knowing how the model works does not tell either party whose input moved the verdict, how a message will be scored, or when the rule changed. A reading remedy for a triadic problem is attractive to its sponsors because it places the deficit in the individual and leaves the arbiter unexamined. We propose a research agenda on the AI-literacy remedy market with four questions. Who produces and certifies the remedy? How do mandates turn it into a compliance obligation? What expectations does it carry? What does it move out of view?
+Hype attaches to remedies as well as to technologies. Alongside the promises made for generative AI, a second set of promises has grown up around "AI literacy": the claim that people who understand how AI works will be safe, employable and in control. Universities, vendors, consultancies, certification bodies and regulators now produce and mandate AI-literacy programmes. This paper treats that remedy as an object of hype studies. Historians of literacy have shown that print-literacy campaigns promised individual advancement that the social order did not deliver. Recent critics argue that AI-literacy initiatives use literacy uncritically as a metaphor and repeat that promise. We add an organizational argument about the problems the remedy is sold for. Many of them are triadic. A booking platform ranks a hotel on its guests' reviews, a marketplace scores a seller on buyers' ratings, and an AI tool can draft a manager's appraisal of an employee. In each case a system evaluates two people and binds both to its verdict. Knowing how the model works does not tell either party whose input moved the verdict, how a message will be scored, or when the rule changed. A reading remedy for a triadic problem is attractive to its sponsors because it places the deficit in the individual and leaves the arbiter unexamined. We propose a research agenda on the AI-literacy remedy market with four questions. Who produces and certifies the remedy? How do mandates turn it into a compliance obligation? What expectations does it carry? What does it move out of view? The questions cover the producers of the remedy, the organizations that adopt and mandate it, and the actors who contest it.
 
 **Keywords:** hype; AI literacy; literacy myth; algorithmic management; expectations
 
diff --git a/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/cfp/README.md b/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/cfp/README.md
index 947cb119..22362910 100644
--- a/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/io_hype_ai_literacy/cfp/README.md
@@ -16,3 +16,22 @@
 - "Hype, decision‑making and organisational practice: How do organisations adopt, invest in, and govern technologies amid competing and exaggerated claims?"
 - "Intermediaries and the infrastructure of hype: How do analysts, consultants, investors, and media actors produce, evaluate, and professionalise hype?"
 - "Contestation, politics and responsibility: How do actors challenge, reframe, or manage "hype" and its risks for equity, governance, and policy?"
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/331903 — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: blocked. Failed.
+- www.journals.elsevier.com, www.linkedin.com — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed. Guest editors' university news pages were not reachable for the same reason.
+- WebSearch, three queries — succeeded; snippets of https://callsforpapers.org/call/io-hype-studies-a-research-agenda-for-organizing-in-digital-futures, https://www.servicesetu.org/call-for-paper/journals/iaorg, https://www.servicesetu.org/call-for-paper/journals/iao, and the Elsevier guide for authors (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/information-and-organization/14717727/guide-for-authors).
+
+**Deadline:** "Paper Submission Deadline: 31 January 2027" (callsforpapers.org snippet; servicesetu.org agrees). The callsforpapers.org listing also gives "Call for papers published: March 29, 2026" and a first-round review date of 15 May 2027. One search summary mentioned a "30 March 2027" date on a ScienceDirect listing but could not tie it to this call. Timezone: still unverified.
+
+**PDW date — still unverified.** The callsforpapers.org snippet reads: "Paper Development Workshop: Late 2026 (date TBA)"; "An online Paper Development Workshop" giving "feedback on draft papers prior to formal submission"; "Participation is encouraged but not required for submission to the Special Issue"; "Details regarding format and timing will be announced following publication of this call." One search summary asserted a PDW on 3 November 2026 with drafts due to Prof. Pollock by 10 October 2026 and acceptances on 26 October; a second search of the same sources found no such dates, so treat that as unconfirmed and possibly spurious. Ask the guest editors directly.
+
+**Length:** still unverified. The Elsevier guide-for-authors snippet covered file formats only (".doc/.docx or .tex", single-column Word files) and did not reach a length section.
+
+**Format (confirmed by both aggregator snippets):** Elsevier Editorial Manager, article type "VSI: Hype Studies", double-blind peer review.
diff --git a/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/ABSTRACT.md
index 72a0cd52..4609c749 100644
--- a/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. Due 31 Jan 2027 (indexed date; verify).]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: one sentence now connects the design properties to the call's concern with workers' voice and agency. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Designing the Third Party: Provenance, Dual Address and Change Notice in Systems That Judge Two People
 
 ## Abstract
-AI at work increasingly stands between two people. A booking platform ranks a hotel on its guests' reviews, a marketplace scores a seller on buyers' feedback, and an AI tool can draft the appraisal a manager gives an employee. In each case the system evaluates a relation and binds both parties to its verdict. IS design research has answered algorithmic opacity with explanation, transparency and contestability, and each answer models a single decision subject facing a system. This paper argues that systems which judge two people need different design properties. The parties' problem is not that the model is hidden; machine-learning opacity is intrinsic. Their problem is that they cannot tell whose input moved a verdict, cannot tell how a message to the other party will be scored, and cannot tell when the rule has changed. We derive three design properties from these problems. Provenance cues show which party's input moved a verdict. Dual address shows a sender what the evaluator will register and what the counterpart will see. Change notice logs rule updates and announces them to both parties. We state each property as a testable design proposition. We ground the propositions in published studies of review filters and contestation, and specify outcome measures for each: correct attribution of responsibility, shared interpretation of messages, and detection of rule change. The contribution is a design theory for the human–machine–institution interface in which the machine is a third party, not a tool or a channel.
+AI at work increasingly stands between two people. A booking platform ranks a hotel on its guests' reviews, a marketplace scores a seller on buyers' feedback, and an AI tool can draft the appraisal a manager gives an employee. In each case the system evaluates a relation and binds both parties to its verdict. IS design research has answered algorithmic opacity with explanation, transparency and contestability, and each answer models a single decision subject facing a system. This paper argues that systems which judge two people need different design properties. The parties' problem is not that the model is hidden; machine-learning opacity is intrinsic. Their problem is that they cannot tell whose input moved a verdict, cannot tell how a message to the other party will be scored, and cannot tell when the rule has changed. We derive three design properties from these problems. Provenance cues show which party's input moved a verdict. Dual address shows a sender what the evaluator will register and what the counterpart will see. Change notice logs rule updates and announces them to both parties. For workers, the three properties are what voice through the system requires: knowing what moved a verdict, being read as intended, and knowing when the rule changed. We state each property as a testable design proposition. We ground the propositions in published studies of review filters and contestation, and specify outcome measures for each: correct attribution of responsibility, shared interpretation of messages, and detection of rule change. The contribution is a design theory for the human–machine–institution interface in which the machine is a third party, not a tool or a channel.
 
 **Keywords:** design theory; algorithmic management; contestability; accountability; future of work
 
diff --git a/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/cfp/README.md b/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/cfp/README.md
index 9e907783..ba9c53e5 100644
--- a/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/isj_future_of_work_design/cfp/README.md
@@ -11,3 +11,24 @@
 
 ## Unknown
 Guest editors, word limit, article types, any PDW, and the exact wording of the call.
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly. Everything below is search-engine snippet text as rendered by the search tool, which is weaker than a page read.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/call-for-papers/si-2026-000678 — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl path blocked (CONNECT 403). Failed.
+- aisnet.org, www.linkedin.com — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, three queries — succeeded; snippets of the Wiley call page, the ISJ call-for-papers listing (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/call-for-papers), and the ISJ author guidelines (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/forauthors.html). No AIS listserv or LinkedIn repost surfaced.
+
+**Deadline:** "31 January 2027" (snippet of the ISJ call-for-papers listing, repeated for this call). Timezone: still unverified.
+
+**Guest editors — found in snippet of the Wiley call page (si-2026-000678):** Robert Davison (City University of Hong Kong), Philip Wu (Royal Holloway, University of London), Ajay Kumar (emlyon business school), Efpraxia Zamani (Durham University). Associate editors named in the same snippet: Petros Chamakiotis, Alain Chong, Riitta Hekkala, Yong Liu, Ulrich Remus, Pauline Weritz, Melody Zou. These names come from a search snippet, not a page read; confirm before citing them in a cover letter.
+
+**Framing (snippet):** the call "frames its aims around Arendt's emphasis on engaged, critical action, and asks the IS community for theoretically informed perspectives on AI and work"; scope covers "AI in workplaces, the human-machine-institution interface, workers' lived experience, and worker voice and agency"; it "focuses on Generative and Agentic AI".
+
+**Length (journal-level, not SI-specific) — snippet of the ISJ author guidelines:** "a Research Article normally should not exceed 10,000 words of main text, excluding references and appendices"; Practitioner Papers "about 8,000 words". Davison's 2024 editorial "The virtue of brevity" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isj.12492) gives the same 10,000 figure. Whether the special issue sets its own limit: still unverified.
+
+**Article types for the SI, any PDW, prior-publication rules:** still unverified.
diff --git a/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/ABSTRACT.md
index 0a3a8d31..427722e9 100644
--- a/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. **A full paper is due 15 Nov 2026**; the word limit is unknown. This is a 250-word abstract.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: one sentence now answers the call's line on how organizations assess the consequences of AI-enabled decisions under institutional constraints and organizational incentives. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** The Internal Third Party: Allocating Algorithmacy in the Post-AI Enterprise
 
 ## Abstract
-Generative AI now stands between people inside the firm. It can draft a manager's appraisal of an employee, screen candidates for a hiring manager, and summarize one colleague's work for another. In each case the system evaluates a relation between two of the firm's people, and the firm holds two roles at once. As operator, it chooses and configures the system. As principal, it employs one of the parties as its agent. This paper argues that this double position changes what organizations must do about AI-enabled decisions. On platforms, the competence to coordinate through an evaluating system is left to each participant. Inside the firm it cannot be, because the firm controls what each party sees and who can question a verdict. We call this competence algorithmacy. It has three practices: interpreting an ambiguous result, specifying intent so the other party can read it through the system, and tracking model changes. We argue that the post-AI enterprise must allocate each practice to a role. Someone must interpret verdicts for both parties, someone must hold the right to specify intent to the system, and someone must track updates. Drawing on published studies of knowledge brokers who translate algorithmic outputs, and of experts whose authority erodes when AI presents uncertain projections as certain, we propose an allocation framework and four propositions. The framework treats contestability as a role assignment, not only as a system feature. Firms that leave the three practices unallocated will find that internal AI deflects accountability between their people instead of supporting it.
+Generative AI now stands between people inside the firm. It can draft a manager's appraisal of an employee, screen candidates for a hiring manager, and summarize one colleague's work for another. In each case the system evaluates a relation between two of the firm's people, and the firm holds two roles at once. As operator, it chooses and configures the system. As principal, it employs one of the parties as its agent. This paper argues that this double position changes how an organization must assess the consequences of its AI-enabled decisions, because the firm's own incentive as one party's principal shapes what each party is allowed to see and to question. On platforms, the competence to coordinate through an evaluating system is left to each participant. Inside the firm it cannot be, because the firm controls what each party sees and who can question a verdict. We call this competence algorithmacy. It has three practices: interpreting an ambiguous result, specifying intent so the other party can read it through the system, and tracking model changes. We argue that the post-AI enterprise must allocate each practice to a role. Someone must interpret verdicts for both parties, someone must hold the right to specify intent to the system, and someone must track updates. Drawing on published studies of knowledge brokers who translate algorithmic outputs, and of experts whose authority erodes when AI presents uncertain projections as certain, we propose an allocation framework and four propositions. The framework treats contestability as a role assignment, not only as a system feature. Firms that leave the three practices unallocated will find that internal AI deflects accountability between their people instead of supporting it.
 
 **Keywords:** generative AI; algorithmacy; accountability; performance appraisal; knowledge brokers
 
diff --git a/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/cfp/README.md b/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/cfp/README.md
index 01d0e653..1e91f4c6 100644
--- a/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/jitcar_post_ai_enterprise/cfp/README.md
@@ -21,3 +21,20 @@
 - "Accountability frameworks for autonomous and generative AI systems"
 - "Explainability, transparency, and contestability of AI-enabled decisions"
 - "Managerial decision-making with autonomous AI agents"
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search-engine snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=utca&page=instructions — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT 403 (proxy policy). Failed.
+- https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/ — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, three queries ("Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research" instructions / word limit / utca20) — succeeded, but no result returned the instructions-for-authors page itself. The journal homepage (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/utca20) and About page (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/utca20/about-this-journal) appeared without a length statement.
+
+**Unknowns**
+- Word limit: still unverified. No snippet carried a figure for JITCAR. (Figures that did appear belonged to other journals — SAGE's *JIT Teaching Cases* "3,000 and 8,000 words", SAGE's *JIT* "6,000 to 9,000 words", jit.tdtu.edu.vn "7,000" — and do not apply.)
+- Article types: still unverified. The About-page snippet says (search-snippet text) "Theme of any article must be related to Information Technology", "articles based on just broad brush survey will not be reviewed", and that the case-research-methodology requirement is waived for special issues.
+- Template: still unverified.
+- Prior-publication / concurrency rules: still unverified.
diff --git a/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/ABSTRACT.md
index 9a63d7b0..ff4372cd 100644
--- a/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. JMS limit: 200 words, 4–6 keywords in alphabetical order. Due 3 May 2027.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the abstract now reaches the call's blame games and polarization; still under 200 words. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Truth by Arbitration: How Evaluating Platforms Settle What Happened Between Two Parties
 
 ## Abstract
-When a hotel and a guest disagree about a stay, or a seller and a buyer about a sale, whose account becomes the fact? On platforms, the answer is increasingly the system's. Its review, rating and ranking record settles what happened, and it displaces older apparatuses of evaluation such as inspection and accreditation. We theorize this as truth by arbitration. The system's record is produced under conditions neither party can inspect. Its rules are withheld, its information asymmetries are designed, and each party shapes its report in anticipation of the other and of the filter. The parties' own accounts carry no comparable authority. Building on research on evaluative apparatuses and algorithmic control, we argue that the only counter-record available to the evaluated parties is the shared understanding they build between themselves outside the system's record. We specify how counter-records are made, kept and asserted, and when platforms admit them. We contribute an account of organizational truth in which authority over facts rests with an arbiter, not with experts or stakeholders.
+When a hotel and a guest disagree about a stay, or a seller and a buyer about a sale, whose account becomes the fact? On platforms, the answer is increasingly the system's. Its review, rating and ranking record settles what happened, and it displaces older apparatuses of evaluation such as inspection and accreditation. We theorize this as truth by arbitration. The system's record is produced under conditions neither party can inspect. Its rules are withheld, its information asymmetries are designed, and each party shapes its report in anticipation of the other and of the filter. The parties' own accounts carry no comparable authority, so a disputed verdict becomes a blame game between parties who cannot make the arbiter answer. Building on research on evaluative apparatuses and algorithmic control, we argue that the only counter-record available to the evaluated parties is the shared understanding they build between themselves outside the system's record. We specify how counter-records are made, kept and asserted, and when platforms admit them. We contribute an account of organizational truth in which authority over facts rests with an arbiter rather than with experts or stakeholders, and we ask what arbitration does when the parties are already polarized.
 
 **Keywords:** algorithmic management; arbitration; evaluation; platforms; shared understanding; truth
 
diff --git a/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/FLAGS.md b/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/FLAGS.md
index 5144d6b4..6ddf741c 100644
--- a/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/FLAGS.md
+++ b/submissions/jms_organizing_truth_arbiter/FLAGS.md
@@ -10,3 +10,4 @@
 6. **Fradkin et al. (2021)** (Airbnb simultaneous reveal) has no card. It would be central to §5, so card it.
 7. **Espeland & Sauder and Martin (2019) have no cards.** Martin is cited in the call itself.
 8. **Kornberger et al. (2017)** is metadata only.
+9. **Cards added 27 Oct 2026, all abstract depth** (`lima_pdw/literature/cards/`): `fradkin2021` (the policy lowered ratings and did not reduce adverse selection; page range 1013–1029), `orlikowskiscott2014` (its abstract says nothing about hotel conduct, so "cleaning schedules" and "quietly" stay unsupported; use `scottorlikowski2012accountability`, full text, for hotel responses), `espelandsauder2007`, `bolton2013` (journal version; the 2009 numbers are not the article's). None is quotable until read at full text.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/INDEX.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/INDEX.md
index be71fb71..11729dd0 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/INDEX.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/INDEX.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Lima PDW — literature index
 
-415 cards in [`cards/`](cards/). Grouped by cluster, then by read depth. Blurb is the first sentence of **Relation to the argument**. Regenerate with `_build_index.py`.
+427 cards in [`cards/`](cards/). Grouped by cluster, then by read depth. Blurb is the first sentence of **Relation to the argument**. Regenerate with `_build_index.py`.
 
 This is the working library for the Lima support arm. Paper 2's 44 cited works are mapped in [`COVERAGE.md`](COVERAGE.md). Citation hazards are in [`TRAPS.md`](TRAPS.md). How to add a card is in [`README.md`](README.md).
 
@@ -18,33 +18,36 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
 |---|---|
 | Full text | 127 |
 | Extended preview | 38 |
-| Abstract only | 217 |
+| Abstract only | 224 |
 | Metadata only | 26 |
 | Abstract plus author secondary | 1 |
 | Preview | 1 |
-| Secondary summary | 4 |
+| Secondary summary | 9 |
 | Secondary via citing source | 1 |
 
 ## Clusters
 
 | Cluster | Count |
 |---|---|
-| accountability-contestation | 56 |
-| ai-productivity-variance | 24 |
+| accountability-contestation | 59 |
+| agency-standing | 3 |
+| ai-productivity-variance | 25 |
 | algorithmacy-lineage | 1 |
 | algorithmic-competence-rivals | 67 |
 | communication-competence | 75 |
-| coordination-forms | 31 |
+| coordination-forms | 32 |
 | coordinative-co-optation-empirical-motivation | 1 |
 | coordinative-co-optation-source | 3 |
+| expectations-hype | 2 |
 | opacity-folk-theories | 49 |
 | qualitative-method | 67 |
 | situated-learning | 39 |
+| technological-mediation | 2 |
 | (unclustered) | 2 |
 
 ---
 
-## accountability-contestation (56)
+## accountability-contestation (59)
 
 ### Full text
 
@@ -93,6 +96,8 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
   This is the article that keeps §5's accountability claim from collapsing into a claim about opacity, and the distinction matters because a reviewer will otherwise ask why explanation does not solve the problem.
 - **[Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), *Research on negotiations in organizations* (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). JAI Press.](cards/biesmoag1986.md)**  
   Interactional justice is the piece of the justice literature closest to the paper's accountability condition, and its structure is the answer to a reviewer's question about whether organisational justice already makes §5's distinction.
+- **[Bolton, G., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2013). Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. *Management Science*, 59(2), 265–285.](cards/bolton2013.md)**  
+  For `egos2027_st64_rules_of_play`, this is the source for reviews read as compliments: when both sides rate and each can see the other's rating before giving its own, a rating becomes a move in an exchange between the two parties rather than a report to…
 - **[Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). *The Oxford handbook of public accountability*. Oxford University Press.](cards/bovensgoodinschillemans2014.md)**  
   The handbook makes §5's definitional move look like standing scholarship rather than one article's framing: a field has organised itself around the forum requirement for over a decade.
 - **[Bucher, E., Schou, P. K., & Waldkirch, M. (2024). Just another voice in the crowd? Investigating digital voice formation in the gig economy. *Academy of Management Discoveries*, 10(3), 488–511.](cards/bucherschouwaldkirch2024.md)**  
@@ -111,10 +116,14 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
   Diakopoulos is where the phrase "algorithmic accountability" enters the literature the paper is drawing on, and it belongs in §6 rather than §5, for a reason the paper should make explicit.
 - **[Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C., & Erlanger, H. S. (1999). The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth. *American Journal of Sociology*, 105(2), 406–454.](cards/edelman1999.md)**  
   This is the single most important corrective to §6, and the paper currently lacks it.
+- **[Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. *American Journal of Sociology*, 113(1), 1–40.](cards/espelandsauder2007.md)**  
+  For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter`, this is the source for reactivity to a record that counts as fact.
 - **[Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming... *Law & Society Review*, 15(3–4), 631–654.](cards/felstiner1981.md)**  
   This is the canonical citation for the pattern in the paper's first participant interview, and it is more precise than any organisational-behaviour source.
 - **[Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of "voice" and improvement on experienced inequity. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 35(2), 108–119.](cards/folger1977.md)**  
   Folger is the single best organisational-psychology citation for §5, and it says something sharper than either the paper or the voice literature usually reports.
+- **[Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., & Holtz, D. (2021). Reciprocity and unveiling in two-sided reputation systems: Evidence from an experiment on Airbnb. *Marketing Science*, 40(6), 1013–1029.](cards/fradkin2021.md)**  
+  For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter` §5, this is the field evidence that the arbiter's record is produced under rules the arbiter can change and that the parties' reports change with them.
 - **[Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). *Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass*. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.](cards/graysuri2019.md)**  
   The rejection-without-reason finding is the cleanest illustration of §5's accountability claim in the literature: a determination that removes payment, delivered with no account, to a party with no route to demand one.
 - **[Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), *Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management* (pp. 79–103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.](cards/greenberg1993.md)**  
@@ -164,7 +173,18 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
 - **[Wieringa, M. (2020). What to account for when accounting for algorithms: A systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT\* '20)* (pp. 1–18). ACM.](cards/wieringa2020.md)**  
   Wieringa is the citation that shows the paper's §5 definition is the settled one in the algorithmic case, not an import the author chose because it suited the argument.
 
-## ai-productivity-variance (24)
+## agency-standing (3)
+
+### Secondary summary
+
+- **[Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? *American Journal of Sociology*, 103(4), 962–1023.](cards/emirbayermische1998.md)**  
+  Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`.
+- **[Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021). Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. *Academy of Management Review*, 46(3), 552–571.](cards/murrayrhymersirmon2021.md)**  
+  Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`.
+- **[Pettit, P. (1997). *Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government*. Oxford University Press.](cards/pettit1997.md)**  
+  Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`.
+
+## ai-productivity-variance (25)
 
 ### Full text
 
@@ -220,6 +240,8 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
   Cite only as corroboration of direction, and only alongside the peer-reviewed studies.
 - **[Toner-Rodgers, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence, scientific discovery, and product innovation. arXiv:2412.17866. **WITHDRAWN — DO NOT CITE.**](cards/tonerrodgers2024.md)**  
   A negative entry, carded so that it does not enter the manuscript by accident.
+- **[Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021). The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, 42(9), 1600–1631.](cards/tong2021.md)**  
+  For `jitcar_post_ai_enterprise`, this is the empirical anchor for AI performance feedback inside the firm.
 - **[Zhou, L., Lei, X., Cooke, F. L., Huang, X., & Zhang, J. (2025). The dual effects of algorithmic management on platform workers: An attribution perspective. *Human Resource Management*, 64(6), 1687–1707.](cards/zhou2025.md)**  
   This is the wedge §1 needs and the only peer-reviewed study in this cluster that supplies it.
 
@@ -543,7 +565,7 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
 - **[Wing, L. (2016). Ethical principles for online dispute resolution: A GPS device for the field. *International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution*, 3(1), 12–29.](cards/wing2016.md)**  
   Cited once in the manuscript, at the point (line 252 in the current draft) where the paper names the closest available benchmark of values an institutional intermediary owes its participants, before arguing that algorithmic coordination regimes withhold…
 
-## coordination-forms (31)
+## coordination-forms (32)
 
 ### Full text
 
@@ -594,6 +616,8 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
   Prior art of an uncomfortably close kind, and the paper should meet it rather than hope it stays buried.
 - **[Moynihan, D. P., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. *Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory*, 25(1), 43–69.](cards/moynihan2015.md)**  
   This is the most serious prior art for the seventh row's *logic*, and the paper is stronger for engaging it than for not having found it.
+- **[Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. *Organization Science*, 25(3), 868–891.](cards/orlikowskiscott2014.md)**  
+  For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter` §3–4, the abstract supports exactly one claim: that an online, consumer-produced apparatus of valuation differs in its practices and outcomes from an expert, institutional one, and that the difference is a matter of what…
 - **[Ritter, T. (1999). The networking company: Antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively. *Industrial Marketing Management*, 28(5), 467–479.](cards/ritter1999.md)**  
   Useful mainly for dating the construct.
 - **[Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I. F., & Johnston, W. J. (2002). Measuring network competence: Some international evidence. *Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing*, 17(2/3), 119–138.](cards/ritterwilkinsonjohnston2002.md)**  
@@ -640,6 +664,15 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
 - **[Selznick, P. (1949). *TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization*. University of California Press.](cards/selznick1949.md)**  
   Cited (by my count) 5–6 times across the body text, a definitional bullet list, and Appendix A's comparative table.
 
+## expectations-hype (2)
+
+### Abstract only
+
+- **[Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, 18(3–4), 285–298.](cards/borup2006.md)**  
+  Arm: `io_hype_ai_literacy`.
+- **[van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, 24(8), 769–782.](cards/vanlente2012.md)**  
+  Arm: `io_hype_ai_literacy`.
+
 ## opacity-folk-theories (49)
 
 ### Full text
@@ -982,6 +1015,15 @@ Three works were carded twice in the 18 August sweep. Both files stay. The junio
 - **[Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. *Harvard Business School Press*.](cards/wenger2002.md)**  
   This card exists to mark a trap rather than to supply support.
 
+## technological-mediation (2)
+
+### Secondary summary
+
+- **[Ihde, D. (1990). *Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth*. Indiana University Press.](cards/ihde1990.md)**  
+  Arm: `spm2027_lived_arbiter`.
+- **[Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). *What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design* (R. P. Crease, Trans.). Pennsylvania State University Press. (Original work published 2000)](cards/verbeek2005.md)**  
+  Arm: `spm2027_lived_arbiter`.
+
 ## Unclustered (2)
 
 ### Full text
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ananny2018.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ananny2018.md
index 2fb37cf7..61472919 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ananny2018.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ananny2018.md
@@ -15,3 +15,5 @@ The temporal limit belongs in §7 as well. A disclosure that describes a system
 
 ## Caution
 Reconstructed from abstract and citing quotations; the enumeration above tracks the standard rendering of the ten limits and should be verified against the original before any is quoted or counted. The article is a critique of transparency, not a theory of accountability — it says what transparency fails to deliver without specifying what a sufficient accountability arrangement would look like, so it cannot carry the constructive half of §6. Its cases are platforms and media systems generally rather than labour platforms. Note the year discrepancy: online first 2016, issue 2018; the library slug uses 2016 and this card uses the issue year.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the SAGE DOI, the Microsoft Research listing (reachable, but it links only to the DOI and the SAGE page), ResearchGate, Academia, HAL and Zenodo; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. The ten limitations are therefore still unverified here; no card in `submissions/` has read this article in full (the `algorithmacy_design_ethics` copy is abstract_only plus secondary).
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/bolton2013.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/bolton2013.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..be98f9e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/bolton2013.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Bolton, G., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2013). Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. *Management Science*, 59(2), 265–285.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the journal article's abstract and record, reached through search-engine renderings of the INFORMS, IDEAS/RePEc and EconPapers pages (published online 10 December 2012; issue dated February 2013). The article's body was not reached: pubsonline.informs.org, ideas.repec.org, ockenfels.uni-koeln.de (which hosts a 25 March 2012 draft), ben.orsee.org and users.nber.org (a 2010 conference draft) were each tried and each is denied by this session's network policy as of 2026-10-27. The 2009 UNSW discussion-paper version is carded in full at `dxd_foundation/literature/library/bolton2013engineering.md`, and that card was read for this one.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** accountability-contestation
+
+## What it argues
+
+The published abstract makes one claim and reports one method. The claim is that reciprocity in feedback giving distorts the production and content of reputation information in a market, and the distortion hampers trust and trade efficiency. The method starts from feedback patterns observed on eBay and other platforms and then runs laboratory experiments to test whether reciprocity can be managed by changing the way feedback information flows through the system. The abstract reports that the changed flow produces more accurate reputation information, more trust and more efficient trade, and closes on implications for theory building and for the design of market trust systems.
+
+What the discussion-paper card adds, and what this card cannot confirm for the article, is the content of those patterns and treatments: a two-sided feedback system in which each side can read the other's rating before posting its own, a "blind" alternative in which neither can, and a one-sided detailed seller rating that only the buyer gives. The 2009 paper reports eBay field percentages for mutual feedback, seller feedback conditional on the buyer's, and the timing of problematic pairs, and laboratory percentages for feedback frequency and realised efficiency under each treatment. Its field section is called "a first look." Which of those numbers survived into the 2013 article, and in what form, is not known from the abstract. Between the 2009 paper and the article there were at least two further versions, a 2010 NBER market-design conference paper and a 25 March 2012 draft on Ockenfels's Cologne site, and the published abstract's summary result, more accurate reputation information, more trust and more efficient trade, is stated more flatly than the 2009 paper's results, where the efficiency gain from the blind treatment was not significant.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+For `egos2027_st64_rules_of_play`, this is the source for reviews read as compliments: when both sides rate and each can see the other's rating before giving its own, a rating becomes a move in an exchange between the two parties rather than a report to the platform, and the platform's record of the trade is the residue of that exchange. The rule that governs the order of posting is the platform's, and the authors' word for changing it is engineering. The arm can cite the abstract for the claim that reciprocity distorts the record and that a change in information flow repairs it; it should cite the discussion-paper card, labelled as such, for anything more specific.
+
+For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter` §3, the abstract supplies the third condition of truth by arbitration, the anticipatory report, in its lab form: a party shapes its report in expectation of the other's, and the platform can remove the expectation by withholding the other's report. The field test of that removal is Fradkin, Grewal and Holtz (2021), carded at `fradkin2021.md`, whose abstract reports that the withheld-reveal rule lowered ratings and did not reduce adverse selection. Read together, the two abstracts say that the record changes when the rule changes, which is the arm's point, and they do not say that the record then becomes true.
+
+## Caution
+
+The article was not read. Every number in `bolton2013engineering.md` belongs to the 2009 discussion paper and must be attributed to that paper, with its date, or not used. The 2009 card already says this, and the EGOS and JMS FLAGS files already say it; this card does not lift the restriction. The abstract's claim that the redesigned flow yields more accurate reputation information should be attributed to the abstract and not expanded; the wording above is a search-engine rendering of the abstract, not a verbatim quotation. If an open copy is wanted, the 2012 draft on Ockenfels's site is the version closest to print that is hosted outside the publisher, and a reader with access should check its field section against the 2009 paper's §V before any eBay figure is used.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/borup2006.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/borup2006.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..79d2fa2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/borup2006.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, 18(3–4), 285–298.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1080/09537320600777002  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the abstract, in fragments, as search-engine excerpts of the Taylor & Francis record and of the Twente, York, DTU and Maastricht repository pages; plus citing literature (an arXiv paper on emerging technologies, a Science & Technology Studies article, a hype-studies resource list). The repository pages, the publisher page and Semantic Scholar were refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026, so the article body was not read and the abstract was not seen whole.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** expectations-hype
+
+## What it argues
+
+This is the introduction to a special issue and the piece that named the field. The claim, as the abstract fragments give it, is that expectations about science and technology are not predictions to be scored for accuracy but real-time representations of future situations and capabilities that do work in the present. Such expectations are fundamentally generative: they guide activities, provide structure and legitimation, attract interest and foster investment. The abstract sets out expectations as a medium of coordination among actor communities, and names three coordinating directions — horizontal, across communities; vertical, across micro, meso and macro scales; and temporal, as expectations change in response and adaptation to new conditions. Expectations are most intense early in a technology's life, when the vision is very likely to differ from the future that arrives, and citing literature takes from the paper the cycle of hype and disappointment that follows. One citing source quotes the paper on the direction of hype: it is about the future and the new, rarely about the past, which erases continuities. The article is an editorial review rather than an empirical study, and its purpose is to set an agenda for studying how expectations are produced, circulated and made to perform.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `io_hype_ai_literacy`. The arm's claim is that hype attaches to remedies as well as to technologies, and that AI literacy is a remedy sold on a promise — understand how AI works and you will be safe, employable and in control. Borup and colleagues supply the theory that makes that a hype-studies claim and not a complaint. The promise of AI literacy is an expectation in their sense: it is generative, because it guides what universities, vendors and certification bodies do; it legitimates, because a mandated curriculum is a visible response to a risk; it attracts investment, because a remedy market needs buyers. The three coordinating directions map onto the arm's four producers. Vertically the expectation runs from a UNESCO or OECD framework down to a course syllabus; horizontally it aligns vendors, universities and regulators who otherwise disagree; temporally it has already begun to adapt, from "learn to code" to "learn to prompt" to "learn how the model works".
+
+The arm's sharper point is one the paper's framework permits but does not make. An expectation about a remedy locates a deficit. If the promise is that the person who understands AI will be in control, then the person who is not in control lacked understanding, and the arbiter that evaluated them is out of the frame. The paper's own observation that hype is about the future and the new and rarely about the past is the handle: the AI-literacy promise is about the worker's future competence and never about the platform's present rule. Van Lente is a guest editor of the target issue, and the arm should cite this paper as the field's founding statement and then extend it, in the arm's words, to the remedy market.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only, in fragments. I did not see the abstract whole, so the three coordinating directions and the "fundamentally generative" wording are as search excerpts rendered them, and the hype-and-disappointment cycle is taken from citing literature rather than from the article. The paper is an editorial introduction with no data of its own. Do not quote it until the publisher page or the Twente repository copy has been opened; the Twente research portal lists a downloadable file.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/burrell2016.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/burrell2016.md
index d6b84d2f..4700bf64 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/burrell2016.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/burrell2016.md
@@ -19,3 +19,5 @@ Useful for precision in the site-fit argument. The gate's opacity is of the firs
 ## Caution
 
 Written about machine-learning classifiers, not about peer-review gates; the transfer is by analogy and should be marked as such. It is a conceptual paper with an illustrative case, not a method paper.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the SAGE open-access HTML and PDF, the Berkeley iSchool publication page and a Chilean course-page mirror of the PDF; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. A sibling card at `submissions/algorithmacy_design_ethics/literature/library/burrell2016.md` is marked full_text from the SAGE version of record and was S2-verified against a Wayback capture of the publisher PDF on 18 September 2026; it quotes the three-kinds definition verbatim. Treat it as the place to check quotations until this card is read from the article itself.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/devito2017.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/devito2017.md
index 6b512282..47ed022a 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/devito2017.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/devito2017.md
@@ -18,3 +18,5 @@ The expectation-violation trigger also matters for how §7 words the facet. Dete
 ## Caution
 
 One hashtag, one platform, one episode, English-language Twitter in 2016, and a corpus that self-selects for the vocally mobilised — it says nothing about the majority who adapted quietly or did not care. Reconstructed from the abstract at both this card's depth and the lab card's; the specific folk-theory taxonomy and coding scheme are unverified here and must be checked before any claim rests on a particular category or count. It is also a *rumoured* change: the reactions are to an announced prospect, not to a detected unannounced shift, which is the harder case §7 describes.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the ACM DOI, the Northeastern SEALab project page that hosts the abstract, OSF and GitHub mirrors; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. No card in `submissions/` has read this paper in full.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/emirbayermische1998.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/emirbayermische1998.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..27de662e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/emirbayermische1998.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? *American Journal of Sociology*, 103(4), 962–1023.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1086/231294  ·  **Read depth:** secondary_summary  ·  **Source read:** not the article. Every host that carries an open copy (web.augsburg.edu, the UCL Discovery mirror of Abdelnour et al. 2017, the JSTOR record) was refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026, so what follows is reconstructed from search-engine excerpts of the article's opening definition and from citing literature (a Wisconsin graduate-seminar reading note, a SAGE encyclopedia entry, an arXiv paper on agency in the age of AI, teacher-agency papers that quote pp. 970–972). No page I cite below was read in the article itself.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** citing_literature
+**Cluster:** agency-standing
+
+## What it argues
+
+Emirbayer and Mische open by saying the word agency has an elusive, resonant vagueness in social theory, and they set out to fix it by treating agency as a process in time rather than a property of persons. Their definition, as citing literature reproduces it, calls agency a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past in its habitual aspect, oriented toward the future as a capacity to imagine alternatives, and oriented toward the present as a capacity to contextualise past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment. Secondary sources place a fuller version at p. 970: human agency is the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments — the temporal-relational contexts of action — which, through the interplay of habit, imagination and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations. I have not checked that wording or that page against the article.
+
+The three orientations are named the iterational, the projective and the practical-evaluative elements, and the authors call the whole the chordal triad of agency. As citing sources render them, the iterational element is the past-oriented, habitual aspect of agency, the reactivation of past patterns of thought and action; the projective element is the future-oriented capacity to imagine alternatives to present arrangements; and the practical-evaluative element is the present-oriented capacity to contextualise past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment, through practical and normative judgment. The authors insist these are analytical distinctions: all three are present in varying degrees within any concrete instance of action, and the degree to which each contributes varies with the actor's situation. One citing reading objects that the article nonetheless ties each temporal orientation to a type of agency in practice. The article's sources, as citing literature lists them, are the pragmatists (Mead's philosophy of the act is in the reference list) and Schutz; the authors describe their own method as a relational pragmatics.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`. The arm's P2 says a co-opted person's agency has two parts that vary independently, competence and standing, and its conclusion says organization theory should locate agency in the triad as the joint product of the two. Emirbayer and Mische supply the vocabulary that makes competence a part of agency rather than a substitute for it. Competence, as the arm defines it — interpreting the system's verdicts, addressing the other party through it, noticing when it changes — is the practical-evaluative element at work under an opaque, adaptive intermediary: judgment among possible actions in response to emerging demands and ambiguities. The iterational element names what the worker brings from before the platform, and the projective element names the capacity to imagine a different verdict or a different counterpart. None of the three, however, names standing. The chordal triad is a theory of the actor's orientations toward a structural environment; it has no term for a recognised right to contest a verdict before someone obliged to answer. That gap is the arm's opening: the triad describes competence exhaustively and standing not at all, which is why the arm pairs this paper with Bovens and Pettit rather than reading standing out of it.
+
+A second use is defensive. Reviewers at *Organization Science* will ask whether "agency" in the paper means anything beyond doing things, and this paper is the field's standard answer. The arm should take the temporal definition and say that the platform's adaptivity attacks the iterational element directly, because a rule that changes without notice makes past patterns unreliable guides.
+
+## Caution
+
+This is a reconstruction. The article was not opened, and the quotations and page numbers above are reported by citing literature whose accuracy I could not test; the p. 970 definition in particular circulates in several slightly different wordings. The term "chordal triad" is confirmed by several secondary sources but I did not see it in the article. The paper is sixty pages of theory with no empirical case and no treatment of technology or intermediaries, so any claim that it speaks to platforms is the arm's extension. Do not cite a page from this card until someone opens the article; the open PDF at web.augsburg.edu/sabo/EmibayerandMisheWhatIsAgency.pdf should be the first thing a session with network access reads.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/eslami2019.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/eslami2019.md
index 2a964436..befd583b 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/eslami2019.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/eslami2019.md
@@ -18,3 +18,5 @@ The bifurcation is also §11's design in miniature. Disclosure produced either i
 ## Caution
 
 Consumer reviewing, not paid work, and the intentions are self-reported immediately after a disclosure intervention rather than observed as behaviour — a well-known gap. Fifteen interviewees plus a discussion corpus from one platform. The abstract does not report whether users who intended to write for the algorithm actually did, or whether it worked, so the source establishes the practice's existence and not its efficacy. Read at abstract depth: this is a card that should be upgraded to full text before the claim carries weight in §7, because it is currently the best single citation for the paper's least-evidenced facet.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the third author's UT Austin copy (`minlee.ischool.utexas.edu/materials/Publication/2019-CHI-AlgoOpacity.pdf`), the IDEALS Illinois record and the ACM DOI; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. A sibling card at `submissions/dxd_foundation/literature/library/eslami2019user.md` is marked full_text from that UT Austin PDF and S2-verified on 15 October 2026; it reports fifteen interviewees, three of whom knew of the filter, six saying they would "write for the algorithm as my audience" and about seven saying they would use Yelp less or leave (its p. 11), all as stated intentions. That card is the current page source for the `spm2027_lived_arbiter` and `isj_future_of_work_design` arms; this card has not confirmed those figures itself.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/espelandsauder2007.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/espelandsauder2007.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..64457f0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/espelandsauder2007.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. *American Journal of Sociology*, 113(1), 1–40.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1086/517897  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the published abstract, through search-engine renderings of the University of Chicago Press record, the ANU and University of Iowa repository records and the Semantic Scholar entry. An open PDF is hosted at inequality.stanford.edu (`Espeland-paper.pdf`, headed "AJS Volume 113 Number 1 (July 2007): 1–40"), and the Iowa and ANU repositories list the article; none could be opened, because journals.uchicago.edu, inequality.stanford.edu, iro.uiowa.edu and semanticscholar.org are denied by this session's network policy as of 2026-10-27. The body was not read.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** accountability-contestation
+
+## What it argues
+
+The abstract opens on the growing use of public measures to evaluate individuals and organizations and takes media rankings of law schools as its case. Its claim is that reactivity, the methodological concept for people changing their behaviour when they are measured, is a useful lens for seeing how such measures effect change. Two mechanisms produce reactivity: self-fulfilling prophecy and commensuration. The abstract does not gloss the second; in Espeland's earlier work the word names the transformation of different qualities into a common metric, and that gloss is mine, not the article's. The article then distinguishes the patterns of effects that reactivity produces and proposes a framework for investigating the consequences of public measures, intended and unintended.
+
+The empirical base, the catalogue of effects, and the discussion of gaming were not read. Secondary summaries list several effects by name; they are not recorded here because they were not read in the source.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter`, this is the source for reactivity to a record that counts as fact. A ranking is a public measure that the ranked party did not produce and cannot revise, and the paper's claim is that the party reorganises itself around the measure anyway, through the two mechanisms the abstract names. The platform's review, rating and ranking record is the same kind of object with one difference the arm should state: *U.S. News* publishes its formula and the platform withholds its rules. Self-fulfilling prophecy and commensuration are therefore available to the arm as mechanisms, and the arm should say that the second mechanism, commensuration, is what makes a hotel's or a seller's conduct comparable to a stranger's at all. Cite the abstract for the lens and the two mechanisms; cite the body, once read, for any particular effect.
+
+The `coordinative_sovereignty` chapter cites this paper for a further claim, that reactivity motivates the evaluator to obscure the formula. The abstract does not say that. The claim may be in the body, in the authors' later work, or it may be the chapter's own inference; until the body is read it should be marked as the chapter's.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only. The article is the first paper of a programme that includes Sauder and Espeland (2009) on the discipline of rankings and the 2016 book *Engines of Anxiety*, and findings from the later work are often attributed to the 2007 article in secondary accounts; the interview sample in particular is described differently across sources and should be taken from the article's own method section. Page citations should come from the journal pagination 1–40, which the Stanford-hosted PDF reproduces.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/fradkin2021.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/fradkin2021.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7b4b1b59
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/fradkin2021.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., & Holtz, D. (2021). Reciprocity and unveiling in two-sided reputation systems: Evidence from an experiment on Airbnb. *Marketing Science*, 40(6), 1013–1029.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1287/mksc.2021.1311  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the published abstract, reached through search-engine renderings of the INFORMS record and the SSRN landing page (abstract 2939064, 56 pages, last revised 29 April 2021), checked against the Crossref abstract already quoted in `dxd_foundation/literature/facets/H_candidate_moves.md` (2026-10-12). No PDF was reached: on 2026-10-27 this session's network policy denied pubsonline.informs.org, papers.ssrn.com, andreyfradkin.com, arxiv.org, semanticscholar.org, core.ac.uk and ideas.repec.org; Consensus had no searches left and Scholar Gateway refused access. Nothing below the abstract has been read.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** accountability-contestation
+
+## What it argues
+
+Fradkin, Grewal and Holtz report a large-scale field experiment on Airbnb that changed one thing: when a review becomes visible. In the control group a review was revealed as soon as it was submitted, so the second party could read the first party's review before writing its own. In the treatment group feedback was hidden until both parties had submitted a review. The abstract reports three results. The treatment stimulated more reviewing in total, which the authors attribute to curiosity about what the counterparty wrote and/or to the wish to have one's own feedback visible to other users. It reduced retaliation and reciprocation in feedback, and ratings fell as a result. The effects on feedback did not translate into reduced adverse selection on the platform.
+
+The abstract calls the mechanism hiding feedback until both parties have submitted. It does not, in the text I reached, use the phrase "simultaneous reveal," which is the platform's and the trade press's name for the policy; the paper's own title word is "unveiling." The number of listings, hosts or guests in the experiment, the size of the rating decline, and the measure of adverse selection are in the body of the paper and were not read.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter` §5, this is the field evidence that the arbiter's record is produced under rules the arbiter can change and that the parties' reports change with them. When each party can read the other's verdict before writing its own, the record carries reciprocation and retaliation; when the platform withholds both verdicts until both exist, the record carries fewer of either and the ratings go down. The second rule removes a channel through which each party could anticipate the other, which is the "anticipatory report" condition in §3, and the abstract's last sentence is the limit of the counter-measure: the record became less reciprocal without the market becoming better sorted. The paper therefore supports simultaneous reveal as a change to the record, not as a repair of what the record is for.
+
+For `sij_service_triad_ethics` §4, the "reciprocal reveal" mechanism should be named and described from this abstract: the verdict is returned to both parties at the same moment, and the price of that return is a lower average rating and no measured gain in sorting. The arm's claim that this mechanism returns the verdict to both parties at once is consistent with the design; the arm should not add that it makes the verdict more accurate, because the abstract says the opposite about adverse selection.
+
+The triad is exact: host, guest and a platform that holds both reviews and decides when each may be read. The counterpart's review is the only thing in the experiment that the platform changes, and the rule change is made by the platform alone.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only. The design and the three results above are the whole of what was read; every number, including the size of the rating decline, must be taken from the article before it is quoted. The INFORMS record gives the page range as 1013–1029, where the arm's working citation has 1013–1031; check against the PDF. Two traps: the 2015 NBER and EC conference paper "Bias and Reciprocity in Online Reviews" by Fradkin, Grewal, Holtz and Pearson is an earlier four-author study that the authors' site says this paper supersedes, and should not be cited as this one; and an INFORMS press release describes the authors as Airbnb employees at the time of the experiment, which the paper's own disclosure statement should be read for before it is repeated. The lab precursor is Bolton, Greiner and Ockenfels (2013), carded at `bolton2013.md` and, from the 2009 discussion paper, at `dxd_foundation/literature/library/bolton2013engineering.md`.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ihde1990.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ihde1990.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..13233a86
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ihde1990.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Ihde, D. (1990). *Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth*. Indiana University Press.
+
+**Identifier:** ISBN 9780253205605 (paperback); no DOI  ·  **Read depth:** secondary_summary  ·  **Source read:** not the book. Google Books, the Internet Archive, PhilPapers and every review host were refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026. What follows rests on search-engine excerpts of citing literature (a Human Studies critique of alterity, a Goldsmiths chapter draft, a FutureLearn course page, a Project MUSE review, arXiv applications) and on the lab's `algorithmacy_design_ethics/literature/library/ihde1990.md`, which is itself secondary (it took the relations and notations from Verbeek 2015, pp. 29–30, read directly). Page numbers below are as citing sources give them and were not checked.
+**Source-tier:** book
+**Evidence basis:** citing_literature
+**Cluster:** technological-mediation
+
+## What it argues
+
+The book's first program, "A Phenomenology of Technics", sorts human–technology–world relations into a small set of types, and that typology became postphenomenology's standard vocabulary. In embodiment relations the technology is taken into the body and the world is experienced through it, as with eyeglasses or a telephone; Verbeek writes the form as (human – technology) → world. In hermeneutic relations the technology represents the world and the human reads the representation, as with a map, a thermometer or an MRI; the form is human → (technology – world). In alterity relations the technology is faced as a quasi-other, something stronger than an object and weaker than an animal or a person — computers, automata, a film seen from a certain angle (citing sources give pp. 98 and 101–102); the form is human → technology (world). Background relations are the technologies that shape experience without being attended to, heating and refrigeration, which one citing source quotes Ihde calling a present absence (p. 109); the form is human (technology / world). Ihde describes the first three as points on a spectrum from which the fourth stands apart. Each relation carries a structure of amplification and reduction: the technology magnifies some aspects of the world and diminishes others. The second program, cultural hermeneutics, adds multistability, the claim that one artifact stabilises into different uses and meanings in different contexts, and the book as a whole asks for a double-sided analysis pairing microperception with cultural hermeneutics (p. 30, per one citing source).
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `spm2027_lived_arbiter`. An SPM audience will expect the talk to say which of Ihde's relations the platform's evaluating algorithm is. The answer the arm should give is that it is none of the four, and the reason is structural. Every Ihde relation has one human and a world, and the technology sits between them in one of four positions. The lived arbiter has two humans. The host writes to the guest and the algorithm reads both; the relation the host stands in is not to a world through a technology but to another person through a judge. The hermeneutic relation is the nearest, because the host does read the platform's representation (a rank, a badge, a visibility drop) to learn how the world stands, but in Ihde's hermeneutic relation the instrument reads the world and the world does not read back, whereas the platform reads the host while the host reads it. The alterity relation is the tempting wrong answer. Jhaver et al.'s hosts speak of the algorithm as a presence they negotiate with, which sounds like a quasi-other, but the hosts are not coordinating with the algorithm; they are coordinating with the guest and being heard by the algorithm, and a quasi-other is faced, not written for. The background relation fits the algorithm's invisibility but not its judgment: a present absence that heats the room does not rank you. Embodiment does not apply.
+
+What the arm can take from Ihde is the method. The doubled address the arm describes — speaking to the other person while being heard by the arbiter — is a microperceptual structure of the kind Program One isolates, and the talk can present it as a fifth relation that the four cannot compose: human → (technology → other human), where the technology's reading of the first human is part of what the second human receives. Amplification and reduction carry over: the arbiter amplifies whatever its rule rewards and reduces the rest of what the host says to the guest. Multistability carries over in a form Ihde did not consider, because the same evaluating technology stabilises differently for the two parties it evaluates at the same moment.
+
+## Caution
+
+The book is unread; the notations are Verbeek's transcription and the page numbers are secondary. I could not check whether chapters 5–6 discuss the telephone or any two-person case, so the claim that no Ihde relation has two humans rests on how the field summarises the typology, not on the text. The "fifth relation" is the arm's proposal and should be presented as one. The SPM talk should quote Ihde only from a copy that has been opened.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/lebovitz2022.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/lebovitz2022.md
index ee20fe1a..cf8aa6a6 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/lebovitz2022.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/lebovitz2022.md
@@ -16,3 +16,5 @@ The closest published study of the exact behaviour §7's asymmetric-interpretati
 ## Caution
 
 A qualitative field study in one hospital, with three departments as the comparative units, so the between-group finding rests on a small number of cases and the mechanism is inferred rather than tested. The professionals are highly credentialed with strong prior domain judgement, which is what makes engagement with divergence possible at all; a novice with no independent judgement cannot interrogate an opaque output the same way, and that is the condition of most of the paper's population. Abstract-level read; the engagement finding is verified from the abstract, and the practices that constitute engagement are described only in the article.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: two open copies were located by search but could not be fetched — the NYU Law printed-online PDF (`law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Lebovitz, Lifshitz-Assaf, Levina, Printed online, OrgSci2022.pdf`) and the Warwick WRAP accepted manuscript (`wrap.warwick.ac.uk/169976`) — along with the INFORMS PDF; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. The search snippet names the engaged/unengaged augmentation terms and "interrogation practices," but neither the practices nor the conditions for engagement were read, so the card body above stays as it was.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/murrayrhymersirmon2021.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/murrayrhymersirmon2021.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cec2103d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/murrayrhymersirmon2021.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021). Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. *Academy of Management Review*, 46(3), 552–571.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.5465/amr.2019.0186  ·  **Read depth:** secondary_summary  ·  **Source read:** not the article. Two open copies exist — the UCL Discovery accepted manuscript (eprint 10159658, "Rhymer_Humans and Technology AMR 2021_AAM.pdf") and a course copy at leeds-faculty.colorado.edu — and both hosts, along with the AOM publisher page and Semantic Scholar, were refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026. What follows is reconstructed from search-engine excerpts of the abstract and from citing literature (a Frontiers in Robotics and AI research agenda that quotes the definition with a page, an Information and Organization taxonomy paper, Fisher and Fleming's 2025 Organization Studies critique, an AMR commentary on hybrid agency). The AOM "Origins" podcast episode on the paper exists but was not reached.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** citing_literature
+**Cluster:** agency-standing
+
+## What it argues
+
+The paper's claim is that newer technologies differ from earlier tools because they can hold intentionality over parts of an organizational routine, and that organization theory therefore needs a vocabulary for agency shared between humans and technology. Murray, Rhymer and Sirmon call that shared agency conjoined agency and, as a citing paper quotes them, define it as the shared capacity between humans and nonhumans to exercise intentionality (reported at p. 555; not checked). The locus of agency is split along two components of a routine: protocol development, which sets the guidelines for how the routine is to be carried out, and action selection, which is the choosing of what to do within it. Each component can rest with the human or with the technology, and the two-by-two yields four forms. With assisting technologies the human holds both protocol development and action selection and the technology is a tool. With arresting technologies the technology holds action selection, so it constrains what the human can do in the moment. With augmenting technologies the technology holds protocol development, so it shapes the rules before the human acts. With automating technologies the technology holds both. The authors acknowledge a Deloitte Insights report for the terms assisting, augmenting and automating, and say they coined arresting themselves.
+
+The dependent variable is the routine. The paper theorises how each form affects a routine's change at a particular moment and the routine's responsiveness to feedback over time, and citing literature reports that automating technologies in particular let routines adapt and evolve from the data they process with little human intervention. Later work finds the arresting category hard to locate in practice for AI.
+
+On accountability the record is empty. Three targeted searches for responsibility, accountability, blame or attribution in connection with the paper returned nothing from the paper itself; the one hit was a service-design paper's own observation that hybrid human–AI systems leave no single actor in full control. Either the paper does not treat accountability, or it treats it in a passage no citing source has picked up. I cannot tell which from here.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`. Murray is a guest editor of the special issue, and the paper is the AMR statement of the human–technology dyad the arm wants to open into a triad. Its two-by-two has exactly one human and one technology, and the routine it modulates belongs to the organization that deploys the technology. The arm's case has three parties and the technology evaluates two of them, neither of whom owns the routine. Read against the four forms, an evaluating platform is arresting for the worker and the counterpart at once — it selects which actions are allowed to count — and augmenting for the operator, whose protocol it writes. That one technology sits in two cells for different parties is the arm's point, and it is a point the paper's own grid can be used to make: conjoined agency is defined per human–technology pair, so a triad produces two conjoined agencies that are not the same and may not be reconcilable.
+
+The accountability silence, if it is real, is the second use. The arm says that when the operator acts through the agency of the parties it evaluates, accountability is distributed, deflected and denied. A conjoined-agency framework that assigns intentionality to the technology without assigning anyone the obligation to answer for it is the theoretical form of that denial. The arm should say so, carefully, and only after the article has been read.
+
+## Caution
+
+Reconstruction, not a reading. The p. 555 locator and the definition's wording come from a citing paper; the four-form descriptions come from several secondary summaries that agree with one another but may all be paraphrasing the abstract. The claim that the paper is silent on accountability is an absence of evidence from search, not a finding about the text, and must not appear in the manuscript until the article is read; the UCL accepted manuscript is the copy to open. Publication timing: the article went online in 2020 and appeared in the July 2021 issue, so some listings date it 2020. Fisher and Fleming (2025, Organization Studies) call the framework's "dark side" unexamined, which is adjacent to the arm's claim and should be carded before the arm cites either.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ng2021.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ng2021.md
index 80761a20..5bb834eb 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ng2021.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/ng2021.md
@@ -28,3 +28,5 @@ Cite it in §9 as the moment when AI literacy acquired the shape it still has, a
 ## Caution
 
 Exploratory review, thirty articles, no stated inclusion protocol or coding reliability; the authors call it exploratory and it should not be cited as a systematic review. Read at abstract depth — the four aspects are firmly established from the abstract and from downstream instruments that name them, but the article's own definitional sentence and its treatment of the teaching literature should be checked in the open-access PDF before quotation. Nothing here is empirical: no sample, no items, no psychometrics. Do not cite it for anything about workers, workplaces, or platform labour; the corpus is education and general-public AI understanding.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the ScienceDirect open-access PDF, the HKU Scholars Hub, the EdUHK repository (which lists the shorter ASIS&T companion paper, not this one) and the INU data repository; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. Whether any definition the review surveys names a second human party is therefore still unchecked; the abstract-level reading above infers it from the four aspects alone.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/orlikowskiscott2014.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/orlikowskiscott2014.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1dfbcc67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/orlikowskiscott2014.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. *Organization Science*, 25(3), 868–891.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1287/orsc.2013.0877  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the published abstract, through search-engine renderings of the INFORMS record, the IDEAS/RePEc listing and the LSE Research Online record (eprints.lse.ac.uk/57602, which holds an accepted-version PDF) and the DSpace@MIT record (1721.1/90837, "author's final manuscript"). Both repository PDFs exist and neither could be opened: eprints.lse.ac.uk, dspace.mit.edu, spiral.imperial.ac.uk and pubsonline.informs.org are all denied by this session's network policy as of 2026-10-27. The body, including the findings on how hotels respond to TripAdvisor, was not read.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** coordination-forms
+
+## What it argues
+
+The abstract asks two questions: how valuations change when consumers produce them online, and what outcomes those valuations produce for the organizations being evaluated. It answers with a comparison of two hotel valuation schemes at work in the hospitality industry, the AA's inspection and star scheme, which rests on specialised expertise and institutional criteria, and TripAdvisor, which rests on consumer content and emergent criteria. The authors treat each scheme as an apparatus constituted through particular material-discursive practices, report significant differences between the two schemes' valuation practices and outcomes, and offer a practice-based lens on the materiality of valuations that explains the differences in terms of performativity.
+
+That is the whole of what was read. The abstract says the two apparatuses differ in practice and in outcome; it does not say what hotels did in response to either, and so this card cannot confirm or refute any sentence about hotel conduct. The question the arm needs answered, how hotels respond to TripAdvisor, lives in the findings section, which the LSE and MIT copies hold.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+For `jms_organizing_truth_arbiter` §3–4, the abstract supports exactly one claim: that an online, consumer-produced apparatus of valuation differs in its practices and outcomes from an expert, institutional one, and that the difference is a matter of what each apparatus does rather than of what it measures. That is the displacement the arm's abstract names, and this paper is its empirical site. The arm should cite it for the comparison and for the apparatus vocabulary, and should not, on this card, cite it for any particular hotel response.
+
+The OT claim check found that the OT manuscript's sentences attributing "cleaning schedules" and hotels responding "quietly" to this paper were overstated. Nothing in the abstract contains either; the check's verdict stands until someone reads the findings. Two companion papers from the same fieldwork are the safer sources for hotel conduct: Scott and Orlikowski (2012) in *Accounting, Organizations and Society*, carded from full text at `hospitality_phygital/library/cards/scottorlikowski2012accountability.md`, and Scott and Orlikowski (2014) in *MIS Quarterly*, "Entanglements in practice," which also compares the AA scheme with TripAdvisor and is not carded. For the hotelier's problem that the arm wants, a party that can read what guests wrote and cannot read how the platform weighed it, the 2023 *Organization Theory* paper (`orlikowskiscott2023.md`) has already been ruled out at the person level, and this 2014 paper is the right place to look, once read.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only. Three papers by these authors compare the AA scheme and TripAdvisor from the same UK hotel fieldwork, in *Accounting, Organizations and Society* (2012), *MIS Quarterly* (2014) and *Organization Science* (2014); cite the one whose findings you have read, and do not transfer a finding from one to another. The interview count and fieldwork dates were seen only in search-engine summaries and are not recorded here. The accepted-version PDF at LSE Research Online and the author's final manuscript at DSpace@MIT will carry manuscript pagination, so page citations taken from either must be reconciled with the journal's 868–891 before they go into a submission.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/pettit1997.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/pettit1997.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0936d01a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/pettit1997.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Pettit, P. (1997). *Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government*. Oxford University Press.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1093/0198296428.001.0001 (Oxford Scholarship Online); ISBN 9780198296423  ·  **Read depth:** secondary_summary  ·  **Source read:** not the book. Neither of the coordinative_sovereignty cards is at full-text depth (`pettit1997republicanism.md` is `verified: search`, catalogue record only; `pettit2012people.md` is `verified: abstract`, publisher description only), so this card was written. Google Books, the OUP catalogue and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy were all refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026. What follows rests on search-engine excerpts of Lovett's SEP entry "Republicanism" (current and archived editions) and the SEP entry "Domination", and on the repo's own `berthon_ethics_course/literature/cards/pettit1997republicanism.md`, which read the SEP entry in full and checked two secondary page-citations (Gädeke 2020; O'Shea 2019) and one secondary quotation (Lindblom 2019) in local PDFs. I did not read any of those PDFs.
+**Source-tier:** book
+**Evidence basis:** citing_literature
+**Cluster:** agency-standing
+
+## What it argues
+
+Pettit's claim is that freedom is non-domination rather than non-interference. A person is free to the extent that no other person or group holds arbitrary, uncontrolled power over them, whether or not that power is used. Secondary sources give the book's definition of domination, at p. 52, in three clauses: someone dominates another to the extent that they have the capacity to interfere, on an arbitrary basis, in certain choices the other is in a position to make. The capacity is what matters. The slave of a kindly master is unfree because the master could interfere at will, and whether he does is, in Lovett's words, neither here nor there; Pettit's own treatment of the benevolent master is reported at pp. 73–74. Consent is no defence: Lindblom quotes Pettit (p. 62) to the effect that a relationship consensual in origin still dominates if it gives one party the effective capacity to interfere more or less arbitrarily in the other's choices. What makes interference arbitrary is the contested term. O'Shea (as the Berthon card reports him) calls "arbitrary" the most slippery word in the account and notes that Pettit later preferred exposure to another's power of uncontrolled interference; Lovett's procedural reading, as the SEP entry gives it, says power is arbitrary to the extent that it is not reliably constrained by effective rules, procedures or goals that are common knowledge to all concerned.
+
+The institutional half of the book follows from the definition. If freedom is non-domination, the state's job is to make power non-arbitrary, and Lovett reports Pettit (pp. 186–187) requiring that decision-makers give reasons, that contestation be open to all on equal terms, and that there be impartial courts of appeal. Contestatory democracy, not consent, is what makes public power track the interests of the governed.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `orgsci_agency_triad`. Standing, in the arm's P2, is a recognised right to contest a verdict before someone obliged to answer. Pettit supplies the normative ground for calling its absence a loss of agency and not merely an inconvenience. A platform that can re-rank, demote or suspend a worker at will, on a rule the worker cannot see and cannot contest, holds the capacity to interfere on an arbitrary basis in choices the worker is in a position to make; by the p. 52 definition that is domination, and by the p. 62 passage the worker's having agreed to the terms does not change it. The kindly-master case is the one the arm needs against the reply that most platforms treat most workers well: a platform that rarely interferes still dominates if nothing forces its interference to track the worker's interests. Standing, on this reading, is non-domination at the scale of a single verdict, and the three requirements at pp. 186–187 — reasons, equal openness to contest, an impartial forum — are a checklist the arm can set against any platform's appeal process. Competence without standing is Pettit's slave with a good map of the master's moods.
+
+The arm must keep the scale right. Pettit's subject is the state, and the lab's `exetasis_sovereignty` arm owns democratic sovereignty; this arm stays at the organizational level and uses non-domination to characterise one relation, the evaluated party's relation to the evaluator.
+
+## Caution
+
+The book was not opened. Every page number above (52, 62, 73–74, 186–187) was read in a secondary source or in a lab card that read a secondary source, and the Berthon card records that two of its secondary sources cite the p. 52 definition from "Pettit 1997b" and "1999: 52" respectively, so the edition behind the page is not settled. The phrase "the capacity to interfere in their affairs on an arbitrary basis", which the lab has quoted as Pettit 1997, is attributed by Lovett to Pettit (1999, p. 165); do not cite it to this book. The eyeball test belongs to *On the People's Terms* (2012), not here. Pettit's own later shift from "arbitrary" to "uncontrolled" means a reviewer may object to the 1997 wording; cite the shift. Open the book before the arm quotes any of this.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/tong2021.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/tong2021.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..95f30bec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/tong2021.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021). The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, 42(9), 1600–1631.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1002/smj.3322  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the published research summary, through search-engine renderings of the Wiley record, the IDEAS/RePEc listing and the SSRN record (abstract 3873901). A PDF is hosted at iacmr.org and the Wiley page offers full text; neither could be opened, because iacmr.org, onlinelibrary.wiley.com, papers.ssrn.com and ideas.repec.org are denied by this session's network policy as of 2026-10-27. The body, including the sample, the outcome measure and the effect sizes, was not read.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** ai-productivity-variance
+
+## What it argues
+
+The paper separates two effects of giving employees performance feedback generated by an AI system. The deployment effect is the gain: better data analytics may improve the feedback and so raise productivity. The disclosure effect is the loss: an employee who learns that the feedback came from an AI may view it negatively, and productivity may fall. The two effects are confounded whenever a firm introduces AI feedback and says so, and the paper's design unconfounds them in a field experiment that randomises, separately, whether the feedback an employee receives is generated by an AI system or by a human manager and whether the employee is told who the provider is. The research summary reports that both effects coexist and that the adverse disclosure effect is mitigated by the employee's tenure in the firm. As suggestive evidence from mediation analyses, disclosure lowers the employee's trust in the quality of the feedback and raises concern about being displaced by the technology, and both harm learning and performance. The managerial summary, as relayed, proposes a tiered use: AI feedback for veterans, human managers for novices.
+
+Search-engine summaries attach a headline performance gain, a sample size and the firm's sector to this paper. None of those figures was read in the source and none is recorded here.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+For `jitcar_post_ai_enterprise`, this is the empirical anchor for AI performance feedback inside the firm. The design is the point: the firm can deploy the evaluating system and separately decide whether the evaluated person is told, and the two decisions have opposite signs. That is a dyad, worker and system, with the firm holding the disclosure rule, and it shows that what the worker knows about the evaluator changes what the evaluation does. The tenure moderation is the arm's bridge to algorithmacy. A longer-tenured employee has more to read the feedback against, more experience of the job's own standards and of the firm's prior feedback, and the disclosure effect weakens with that experience. The arm can state this as the paper's finding and can say, as its own claim, that experience here is doing the work that a competence for reading an opaque evaluator would do. It should not say the paper measures such a competence; it measures tenure.
+
+The limit for the triad is the one the OT hostile review already named: the study is a dyad. There is no counterpart whom the employee must coordinate with through the system, so the paper shows the evaluator's opacity mattering to one person and shows nothing about the second person. The arm should cite it for the firm-internal case and say where it stops.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only. The research summary names the effects and their signs; it does not give magnitudes in the text I reached, and the figures that circulate in summaries of this paper must be read in the article before use. The mediation evidence is described by the authors as suggestive; do not promote it to a finding. The OT review's citation check marked the tenure claim as supported from the Crossref abstract, which is the same depth as this card. The paper is cited in the algorithmacy OT manuscript's dyad list and in its reference list, so its citation form there and here should match.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/vanlente2012.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/vanlente2012.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cb81915e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/vanlente2012.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, 24(8), 769–782.
+
+**Identifier:** 10.1080/09537325.2012.715478  ·  **Read depth:** abstract_only  ·  **Source read:** the abstract, as search-engine excerpts of the Maastricht and Utrecht repository records and the Taylor & Francis record, in two overlapping fragments that together appear to cover it. The repository pages (cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl; dspace.library.uu.nl handle 1874/257104, which lists a file), ResearchGate, Academia.edu and the publisher were all refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026, so the body was not read and the three lessons the abstract promises were not obtained.
+**Source-tier:** primary_journal
+**Evidence basis:** publisher_summary
+**Cluster:** expectations-hype
+
+## What it argues
+
+The paper starts from the observation that socio-technical developments are saturated with formal and informal anticipations, and asks what that condition means for foresight, the organised practice of producing anticipations on purpose. It reviews the range of foresight studies alongside the main results of the sociology of expectations, which studies how expectations about science and technology are produced and circulated informally, and from that comparison derives three generic lessons and discusses how they support or limit foresight's ambitions. The abstract does not state the lessons and no citing source I reached reproduces them. Van Lente's research page describes his standing concern as the performativity of expectations and promises and places foresight and scenario planning among the sites where expectations are produced, which is the paper's framing: a foresight exercise is not a view from outside the sea of expectations but one more vessel on it. One citing summary attributes to the paper the warning that foresight exercises tend to reproduce prevailing narratives rather than create new insight, risking lock-in to existing pathways, and that bringing in diverse stakeholders helps only partly because new coalitions can reflect existing power. I could not confirm that attribution against the text.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `io_hype_ai_literacy`. Van Lente is a guest editor of the target special issue, and this paper is his own application of the 2006 framework to a practice that claims to stand above expectations. The arm can use it as a template, because AI literacy makes the same claim about itself that foresight does: it presents itself as the sober corrective to hype rather than as a product of it. The paper's move — treat the corrective as one more expectation and ask what it performs — is the arm's move with the object changed. If the lessons, once read, say what the citing summary says they say, the arm gains a second point: a remedy that reproduces the prevailing narrative locks in the pathway, and the prevailing narrative about AI at work is that the deficit is in the person. The arm's conclusion, that hype around AI literacy is organizationally useful because it leaves the arbiter unexamined, is a lock-in claim of that kind.
+
+## Caution
+
+Abstract only. The three lessons are the paper's contribution and I do not know what they are; the lock-in reading is one citing summary's and is unverified. One Maastricht profile page gives the pages as 789–802, against 769–782 on the DOI record and the other listings; use 769–782. Do not cite the lessons, or attribute any position on foresight to van Lente, until the Utrecht repository file has been opened.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/verbeek2005.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/verbeek2005.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a9812df4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/verbeek2005.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). *What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design* (R. P. Crease, Trans.). Pennsylvania State University Press. (Original work published 2000)
+
+**Identifier:** ISBN 9780271025407; no DOI  ·  **Read depth:** secondary_summary  ·  **Source read:** not the book. Penn State Press, Google Books, the Internet Archive, Monoskop and Feenberg's SFU-hosted review were refused by this session's egress proxy on 27 Oct 2026. What follows rests on search-engine excerpts of Feenberg's review (Human Studies 32, 2009, pp. 225–228), of the publisher's listing, of Dorrestijn's and other secondary accounts of technical mediation, and on the lab's `algorithmacy_design_ethics/literature/library/verbeek2005.md`, which is itself secondary (it took page-located quotations from Redaelli 2022 and Verbeek's self-citation in 2014). Page numbers below are as those sources give them and were not checked.
+**Source-tier:** book
+**Evidence basis:** citing_literature
+**Cluster:** technological-mediation
+
+## What it argues
+
+Verbeek's claim is that artifacts are not neutral instruments but mediators that co-shape how people perceive the world and how they act in it, and that philosophy of technology should start from concrete things rather than from Technology as a condition. The book opens by faulting the classical philosophy of technology of Jaspers and Heidegger for treating technology as an alienating whole, moves through Ihde's postphenomenology and Latour's actor-network theory, and ends with Borgmann's device paradigm and a chapter on design. The middle of the book sets out technological mediation on two sides. On the hermeneutic side artifacts transform perception and interpretive frameworks, with a structure of amplification and reduction: some ways of seeing the world are strengthened and others weakened. On the existential or pragmatic side artifacts shape action, with a structure of invitation and inhibition: artifacts translate programs of action, inviting some conduct and discouraging the rest (secondary sources locate this at pp. 155–156). Verbeek's placement of Latour, as Redaelli quotes it, credits him with showing that technologies co-shape interactions (p. 103) but faults him for describing from the standpoint of an outside analyst rather than from a situated human, and offers postphenomenology as the view from inside out (p. 168); humans and things are to be distinguished but not separated (pp. 166–168, per Verbeek 2014). Feenberg's review calls the result an important contribution that keeps the existential concerns of the classical tradition while taking the co-construction thesis from technology studies.
+
+Verbeek (2011), *Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things* (University of Chicago Press), extends the mediation thesis to morality: because technologies mediate perception and action, they mediate moral decisions, and people are technologically mediated moral agents; the book's cases run from obstetric ultrasound, which makes the fetus a patient and the womb a site of decision, to persuasive and ambient technologies. The lab holds a snippet-level card for it at `algorithmacy_design_ethics/literature/library/verbeek2011.md`, which records page-located passages on force, persuasion and seduction as forms of behaviour-steering mediation (p. 126 there) and on persuasive technology as composite intentionality (p. 148 there). I did not reach either book this session.
+
+## Relation to the argument
+
+Arm: `spm2027_lived_arbiter`. Verbeek gives the SPM talk the word it needs, mediation, and the two-sided structure that lets the arm say what the arbiter does. On the hermeneutic side the platform amplifies the guest's rating and the host's response time and reduces everything else the host said; on the pragmatic side it invites the host to write for the filter and inhibits the sentence that would cost a star. Eslami et al.'s reviewers who learn of the filter and begin to write for it are a case of invitation in Verbeek's sense. The talk can present the lived arbiter as mediation of a kind Verbeek's two sides do not jointly describe, because both sides run between one human and a world, while here the mediated object is another person's speech and the mediation is itself an evaluation that binds both speakers.
+
+The methodological point matters for an SPM audience. Verbeek's objection to Latour is that the outside analyst's description misses how access to reality is co-shaped from inside; the arm is on Verbeek's side of that line, because its evidence is how hosts and reviewers report the arbiter, and it should say so. *Moralizing technology* supplies the moral vocabulary if the talk wants it: an arbiter that nobody chose and nobody can see is a mediator of moral decisions whose designers did not accompany it, in Verbeek's sense, into the host's room.
+
+## Caution
+
+Unread. The hermeneutic/pragmatic distinction and the amplification–reduction and invitation–inhibition pairs come from Feenberg's review and secondary summaries, not from the book's own sentences; the pp. 103, 155–156 and 166–168 locators are second-hand. Verbeek models human–technology–world with one human, so the arm's two-person extension is the arm's. The translation is Crease's, from the 2000 Dutch *De daadkracht der dingen*, and quotations in English should be checked against the Penn State edition before use. Verbeek (2011) is carded elsewhere at partial depth and should be cited from that card, not this one.
diff --git a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/waardenburg2022.md b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/waardenburg2022.md
index 6067294a..681623e3 100644
--- a/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/waardenburg2022.md
+++ b/submissions/lima_pdw/literature/cards/waardenburg2022.md
@@ -22,3 +22,5 @@ The paper is also a resource for §5 and §6. It is a documented case of an opaq
 ## Caution
 
 A single-organisation ethnography in Dutch policing, with a handful of focal informants; the three roles are a processual finding from one case, not a general typology, and nothing supports a distributional claim. No competency is named, no construct proposed, no measure offered — this is practice research, and calling its brokers "competent" is the manuscript's gloss, not the authors'. The setting is an employed, hierarchical organisation, which is the manuscript's *second* column, not its fourth; the officers have supervisors, colleagues and standing that a platform worker does not, so the analogy must be drawn at the level of opacity rather than of form. Abstract-depth read: the three roles are named in the abstract and can be cited, but the practices constituting each were not confirmed. Crossref dates the article 2021 online with the 33(1) issue in 2022; cite 2022.
+
+Upgrade attempted 27 Oct 2026: tried the INFORMS PDF, the IDEAS/RePEc record and searches for a VU Amsterdam or IESEG deposited manuscript; SAGE, ACM, INFORMS and ScienceDirect are denied by this session's network policy, as are doi.org, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, CORE, DOAJ, archive.org and scholar.archive.org; the Scholar Gateway full-text search returned ACCESS_DENIED and the Consensus quota was exhausted; the author's Google Drive was searched by full text and by PDF title and holds no copy; still abstract_only. The practices constituting messenger, interpreter and curator, and the paper's own claim about brokers substituting judgment for predictions, remain confirmed only at abstract depth.
diff --git a/submissions/misqe_delegation_triads/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/misqe_delegation_triads/ABSTRACT.md
index 0a5dd375..b862ca99 100644
--- a/submissions/misqe_delegation_triads/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/misqe_delegation_triads/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. Full paper due 1 Mar 2027. **MISQE requires evidence (FLAGS 1).**]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the practices are framed as intervention mechanisms for agents acting with limited supervision, the call's first theme. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** When Your AI Agent Is Also Your Counterpart's: Managing Delegation That Creates a Third Party
 
 ## Abstract
-Managers delegate work to AI agents as if they were hiring an assistant: the manager directs, the agent executes, and oversight catches errors. That picture holds while the agent's work stays with the person who delegated it. It breaks when the output crosses to someone else. A developer's coding agent produces changes a reviewer must approve. A sales team's agent drafts messages a customer answers through the same system. A manager's agent summarizes work that the employee will see and dispute. In each case the agent stands between two people, and its rules govern both. Those rules include when it asks, when it proceeds alone, and which decisions it shows, and the vendor, not either person, sets and changes them. Using the product documentation and release notes of a widely used coding agent, we show how such rules shift between releases. Settings that keep the agent working without stopping for clarifying questions, and questions that time out so the agent proceeds on its own judgement, change where the human decision points fall. We draw three management practices from this. Decide whose rules govern the agent when its output reaches another person. Decide who sees which outputs and decision points. Monitor vendor changes to the agent's behaviour as you would monitor a policy change. A one-page checklist turns each practice into questions a manager can ask before delegating.
+Managers delegate work to AI agents as if they were hiring an assistant: the manager directs, the agent executes, and oversight catches errors. That picture holds while the agent's work stays with the person who delegated it. It breaks when the output crosses to someone else. A developer's coding agent produces changes a reviewer must approve. A sales team's agent drafts messages a customer answers through the same system. A manager's agent summarizes work that the employee will see and dispute. In each case the agent stands between two people, and its rules govern both. Those rules include when it asks, when it proceeds alone, and which decisions it shows, and the vendor, not either person, sets and changes them. Using the product documentation and release notes of a widely used coding agent, we show how such rules shift between releases. Settings that keep the agent working without stopping for clarifying questions, and questions that time out so the agent proceeds on its own judgement, change where the human decision points fall. We draw three management practices from this, each an intervention point for an agent that acts with limited supervision. Decide whose rules govern the agent when its output reaches another person. Decide who sees which outputs and decision points. Monitor vendor changes to the agent's behaviour as you would monitor a policy change. A one-page checklist turns each practice into questions a manager can ask before delegating.
 
 **Keywords:** agentic AI; delegation; governance; third party; vendor change
 
diff --git a/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/ABSTRACT.md
index cbc92a9f..c0c10af9 100644
--- a/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. Due 1 Feb 2027.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: the closing sentence uses the call's own starting point, the changing production of action. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Competence and Standing: The Agency of the Co-opted in AI-Mediated Organizing
 
 ## Abstract
-When an AI system evaluates two people and binds both to its verdict, who acts? Platforms and AI-mediated workplaces answer by co-optation. A booking platform ranks a hotel on guests' reviews, a marketplace demotes a seller on buyers' ratings, and an AI tool can draft the appraisal a manager gives an employee. In each case the operator benefits from the parties' agency without treating them as its agents, and accountability is distributed, deflected and denied. Recent theory treats AI not as an agent but as a capability of a system of relations among people and algorithms. We ask what agency remains to the people inside such a system. We argue that the co-opted person's agency has two components that vary independently. Competence is the practical ability to interpret a verdict, to address the other party through the system, and to notice when the system's rule changes. Standing is a recognized right to contest a verdict before someone obliged to answer. The two combine into four positions. With both, agency is effective. With competence alone, the person becomes a moral crumple zone, absorbing blame for verdicts they can read but cannot contest. With standing alone, rights go unused. With neither, the person is simply managed. We develop propositions about how organizations distribute competence and standing among the parties they evaluate, why operators prefer to supply competence (training) over standing (contest), and how asymmetric distributions between the two parties shape whom the system blames. The account relocates agency from the person or the machine to the configuration of competence and standing in the triad.
+When an AI system evaluates two people and binds both to its verdict, who acts? Platforms and AI-mediated workplaces answer by co-optation. A booking platform ranks a hotel on guests' reviews, a marketplace demotes a seller on buyers' ratings, and an AI tool can draft the appraisal a manager gives an employee. In each case the operator benefits from the parties' agency without treating them as its agents, and accountability is distributed, deflected and denied. Recent theory treats AI not as an agent but as a capability of a system of relations among people and algorithms. We ask what agency remains to the people inside such a system. We argue that the co-opted person's agency has two components that vary independently. Competence is the practical ability to interpret a verdict, to address the other party through the system, and to notice when the system's rule changes. Standing is a recognized right to contest a verdict before someone obliged to answer. The two combine into four positions. With both, agency is effective. With competence alone, the person becomes a moral crumple zone, absorbing blame for verdicts they can read but cannot contest. With standing alone, rights go unused. With neither, the person is simply managed. We develop propositions about how organizations distribute competence and standing among the parties they evaluate, why operators prefer to supply competence (training) over standing (contest), and how asymmetric distributions between the two parties shape whom the system blames. The account relocates the production of action from the person or the machine to the configuration of competence and standing in the triad.
 
 **Keywords:** agency; co-optation; algorithmic management; accountability; standing
 
diff --git a/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/cfp/README.md b/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/cfp/README.md
index 6dd6bcf0..592bd624 100644
--- a/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/orgsci_agency_triad/cfp/README.md
@@ -25,3 +25,20 @@
 
 ## Unknown
 Length, format, timezone and prior-publication rules (all in the blocked PDF). A newer PDF version is linked from the 18 Oct post.
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page or PDF was read. Everything below is search-engine snippet text as rendered by the search tool.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://orgsci.substack.com/p/the-2027-winter-conference-special — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT 403 (proxy policy). Failed. The PDF it links (filename ending post-1789996319620.pdf) therefore could not be located or downloaded.
+- pubsonline.informs.org, str.aom.org, omt.aom.org — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, three queries — succeeded; snippets of https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/orsc/calls-for-papers, https://orgsci.substack.com/p/agency-in-the-age-of-ai, and the two AOM community posts. A search for the PDF filename returned nothing.
+
+**Portal opening date — snippet of the INFORMS Organization Science calls-for-papers page:** "Special Issue on Agency in the Age of AI. Submissions Open: November 1, 2026. Submissions Close: February 1, 2027." This conflicts by one day with the 26 Oct digest of the 18 Oct Substack post ("portal opens 2 Nov 2026"); 1 Nov 2026 is a Sunday and 2 Nov a Monday. Treat either as the earliest submission date and check the portal on 2 Nov.
+
+**Also in the INFORMS snippet:** "Guest Editors: Paul Leonardi, Alex Murray, Frank Nagle, Nelson Phillips, Juliana Schroeder, Paula Ungureanu, Elisa Villani"; "the issue will follow an accelerated review process".
+
+**Length, format, timezone, prior-publication rules:** still unverified. No snippet mentioned page or word limits, spacing, a time zone, or a prior-publication clause. The journal's general submission guidelines on pubsonline.informs.org are the fallback and were also unreachable.
diff --git a/submissions/perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md b/submissions/perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
index 8fb47657..fd34475e 100644
--- a/submissions/perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/perspsych_measuring_algorithmacy/cfp/README.md
@@ -17,3 +17,22 @@
 
 ## Unknown
 Length, format and article types are in the blocked Wiley page.
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17446570/call-for-papers/generative-workplace — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: blocked. Failed.
+- www.anzam.org — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, four queries — succeeded; snippets of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17446570/call-for-papers (the journal's listing), the ANZAM repost, and the journal's general guide https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17446570/homepage/guide.htm.
+
+**Window dates — conflict found, still unresolved.**
+- Snippet of the Wiley Personnel Psychology call-for-papers listing: "The Generative Workplace: The Lived Experience of Generative AI at Work", deadline for submissions "31 August 2027".
+- ANZAM repost (read 26 Oct; snippet agrees): "Submission window: 1 August – 27 August 2027", "Deadline: August 27 2027".
+- The Wiley listing is the journal's own, but the full call page was not read. Plan for 27 August 2027 as the safe date.
+- No snippet named the guest editors (Tay, Bankins, Langer come from the ANZAM repost only).
+
+**Length, format, article types for the SI:** still unverified. The journal's general guide snippet gives only: abstract "should not exceed 200 words"; main text "double-spaced, in 12 point and Times New Roman font"; no main-text maximum appeared in the snippet.
diff --git a/submissions/sase2027_platform_cooptation/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/sase2027_platform_cooptation/ABSTRACT.md
index 25e1965d..a9e483f3 100644
--- a/submissions/sase2027_platform_cooptation/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/sase2027_platform_cooptation/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. SASE expects abstracts of about 1,000 words, not counting references. MC09 is due 1 Nov 2026.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: a Network J closing is supplied as an alternate; the MC09 text is unchanged. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Governed Without a Seat: Platform Co-optation and the Governance Work of the Governed
 
 ## Abstract
@@ -19,6 +21,8 @@ The paper builds this argument from published studies of three settings: online
 
 **Keywords:** platforms; co-optation; governance; evaluation; voice; digital economy
 
+**Network J variant (16 Dec route).** [Claude, 27 Oct 2026.] If the abstract goes to Network J instead of MC09, replace the last three sentences of the final paragraph with: "A published rule does not give the governed a seat, a shared forum or a portable record. Participatory evaluation systems and digital reputations, which the network studies as coordination instruments, are where those three goods are missing. The paper treats them as objects of governance in their own right." 
+
 ## References (cited in the abstract)
 - Hirschman, A. O. (1970). *Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states*. Harvard University Press.
 - Johnston, H., & Land-Kazlauskas, C. (2018). *Organizing on-demand: Representation, voice, and collective bargaining in the gig economy* (Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 94). International Labour Office.
diff --git a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/ABSTRACT.md b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/ABSTRACT.md
index 5d5b5d74..174f6d1d 100644
--- a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/ABSTRACT.md
+++ b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/ABSTRACT.md
@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 [DRAFTED by Claude, 26 Oct 2026. For the author's read-aloud. Due 30 June 2027.]
 
+[Revised by Claude, 27 Oct 2026, against the CFP: names the call's object, responsibility for service failures. See `../CFP_FIT_REVIEW_2026-10-27.md`.]
+
 **Title:** Where Accountability Breaks in the Service Triad, and to Whom It Can Be Returned
 
 ## Abstract
-Service work has always involved three parties: the worker, the customer and the firm. On booking and home-sharing platforms, and increasingly inside hotels, an evaluating system now occupies the third corner. It turns guests' judgements into verdicts on staff, hosts and properties, and it sets the rules under which guests and hosts meet. This paper asks where accountability breaks in that arrangement and which mechanisms can restore it. Drawing on published studies of hotel reviews, home-sharing hosts, discrimination in guest acceptance and portability of reputation, we identify four break points. Score aggregation hides how much of a verdict each party produced. Access rules set by the intermediary sort guests before any service begins. Ratings do not travel between platforms, so a poor verdict cannot be escaped. Oversight assigned to frontline staff who cannot override the system leaves them absorbing responsibility without control. We then compare four restoring mechanisms by the party to which each returns the verdict. Appeals return it to the evaluated worker or property. Reciprocal reveal returns it to both parties at once. Managerial adjustment returns it to the firm. Guest-visible attribution returns it to the customer. The resulting framework tells service managers and regulators which mechanism fits which break. It also shows why transparency alone, which returns the verdict to no one, does not restore accountability in the service triad.
+Service work has always involved three parties: the worker, the customer and the firm. On booking and home-sharing platforms, and increasingly inside hotels, an evaluating system now occupies the third corner. It turns guests' judgements into verdicts on staff, hosts and properties, and it sets the rules under which guests and hosts meet. This paper asks where accountability for service failures breaks in that arrangement and which mechanisms can restore it. Drawing on published studies of hotel reviews, home-sharing hosts, discrimination in guest acceptance and portability of reputation, we identify four break points. Score aggregation hides how much of a verdict each party produced. Access rules set by the intermediary sort guests before any service begins. Ratings do not travel between platforms, so a poor verdict cannot be escaped. Oversight assigned to frontline staff who cannot override the system leaves them absorbing responsibility without control. We then compare four restoring mechanisms by the party to which each returns the verdict. Appeals return it to the evaluated worker or property. Reciprocal reveal returns it to both parties at once. Managerial adjustment returns it to the firm. Guest-visible attribution returns it to the customer. The resulting framework tells service managers and regulators which mechanism fits which break. It also shows why transparency alone, which returns the verdict to no one, does not restore accountability in the service triad.
 
 **Keywords:** service triad; algorithmic accountability; hospitality platforms; opacity; human oversight
 
diff --git a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/FLAGS.md b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/FLAGS.md
index 0bc73cb9..48510b8e 100644
--- a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/FLAGS.md
+++ b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/FLAGS.md
@@ -10,3 +10,4 @@
 6. **Edelman et al.** concentrate the effect among hosts with no prior African-American guest, and decline to separate race from socioeconomic status.
 7. **The hotel-internal systems ("increasingly inside hotels")** have no specific card. Soften or source before submission.
 8. **"Managerial adjustment" as a mechanism** rests on the OT paper's Lin et al. (2026) citation, which has no card here.
+9. **Fradkin et al. (2021), carded 27 Oct 2026 at abstract depth** (`lima_pdw/literature/cards/fradkin2021.md`). Its abstract says the simultaneous-reveal policy lowered ratings and did not reduce adverse selection. "Reciprocal reveal" may be presented as returning the verdict to both parties at once; it must not be presented as making verdicts more accurate. The abstract never uses the phrase "simultaneous reveal". The page range is 1013–1029, not 1013–1031.
diff --git a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/cfp/README.md b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/cfp/README.md
index 9673d7ff..2b4056ec 100644
--- a/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/sij_service_triad_ethics/cfp/README.md
@@ -19,3 +19,20 @@
 - "Unclear accountability structures may obscure responsibility for service failures or might facilitate unintended harmful outcomes"
 - "Algorithmic opacity makes it difficult for customers to understand, question or contest adverse decisions."
 - Topics: "Accountability and responsibility in human–AI service interactions"; "Human oversight and hybrid human–AI service models"; "Transparency and explainability in automated service decisions".
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. No page was read directly; only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=fsij&page=instructions — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: blocked. Failed.
+- https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/ — curl: 000 (blocked). Failed.
+- WebSearch, three queries ("Service Industries Journal" instructions / word limit / fsij20) — succeeded, but no result returned the instructions-for-authors page. Only the journal homepage (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/fsij20) and About page (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/fsij20/about-this-journal) surfaced.
+
+**Word limit:** still unverified. No snippet carried a figure for SIJ. (The only figure that appeared, "10,000 word maximum", belongs to SAGE's *Journal of Service Research* and does not apply.)
+
+**Review (About-page snippet, search-snippet text):** "All articles in SIJ undergo rigorous peer review, based on initial Editor-in-Chief and Methodology Editor screening followed by double-anonymized refereeing using at least two anonymous referees." Consistent with the call's "double-blind review".
+
+**Article types, template, prior-publication rules:** still unverified.
diff --git a/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/README.md b/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/README.md
index f2a2c27a..775b01ee 100644
--- a/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/README.md
+++ b/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/README.md
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
 
 **The call:** Society for Phenomenology and Media, Mexico City, 16–20 Mar 2027. Digest: [`cfp/README.md`](cfp/README.md).
 
+**Axis to select:** Axis 1, Mediated Institutionality and Platform Governance; the anxiety finding also answers Axis 2's affectivity line. [Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
 **Angle:** platform opacity is lived as a doubled address before an arbiter nobody chose (Simmel's third).
 
 **Relation to other arms:** draws on [`../triadic_reduction/`](../triadic_reduction/) (Simmel cards). It is distinct from [`../cepe2027_third_party_accountability/`](../cepe2027_third_party_accountability/), which argues accountability's logical form.
diff --git a/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/cfp/README.md b/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/cfp/README.md
index 5f28c4df..8bfbd783 100644
--- a/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/cfp/README.md
+++ b/submissions/spm2027_lived_arbiter/cfp/README.md
@@ -21,3 +21,17 @@
 - Axis 1, "Mediated Institutionality and Platform Governance": "Digital platforms, social networks, and AI systems as emerging institutional structures."
 - "Algorithmic governance, automated decision-making, and the lived experience of bureaucratic opacity."
 - Axis 2: "The affectivity of institutions: institutional trust, anxiety, alienation, and sense of belonging."
+
+## Verification attempt, 27 Oct 2026
+
+[DRAFTED by Claude, 27 Oct 2026.]
+
+**Network state.** The session's egress proxy refused every outbound host (CONNECT 403), and WebFetch returned ENOTFOUND. Only search snippets were available.
+
+**URLs tried**
+- https://easychair.org/cfp/SPM2027 — WebFetch: ENOTFOUND; curl: CONNECT 403 (proxy policy). Failed.
+- WebSearch (one query) — succeeded; snippets of https://easychair.org/cfp/SPM2027 and https://easychair.org/cfp/spm2027.
+
+**Timezone for 15 Dec 2026:** still unverified. Snippets confirm "December 15, 2026" as both the abstract registration deadline and the submission deadline, with no time of day or timezone. (EasyChair CFP pages do not usually state one; the society page may.)
+
+**Side note from the snippets:** the two EasyChair CFP pages show different submission links, conf=spm20270 and conf=spm202701. Confirm which is live before submitting.