The “In ARGUS” field is the core of the notice. It is drawn from the protocol, at the point where the protocol defines or uses the notion. The French glossary sets the requirement: if only the term and the first sentence of this field are kept, the reader must be able to explain the notion correctly to someone else. Conditions, exceptions and references to steps come afterwards, and none of them may be dropped or softened to make the reading easier.

Thus, in the French glossary, a check is “a verification question defined before it is carried out and counted as a single unit”. The rest of the field specifies that each check receives one of the three statuses provided for in 3.B, and that every analysis declares three numbers, one per status.

The “In ARGUS” field says nothing the protocol does not say. In the German and Portuguese glossaries, every quotation from the protocol is compared with the protocol text by a script before any audit. Even so, the Portuguese audit found a notice that distinguished two terms with defining sentences the protocol does not contain; they were replaced.

The regime determines the form of the notice. There are three.

Under regime A, an ordinary word receives a precise meaning in ARGUS. Check is an example: the reader knows the word and is unaware of the unit of count it designates.

Under regime B, the word is an established term in a field, and the notice gives that “established meaning” before the ARGUS usage. Assertoric comes from the Kantian classification of judgements, where it occupies the middle degree between the problematic and the apodictic. In ARGUS, it designates the highest of four degrees on a scale of commitment. The notice has to state both, since a reader who knows Kant would otherwise misread the scale.

Under regime C, the expression is a creation of the protocol, with no prior meaning. Locked nuance is an example: according to the French glossary, a nuance “integrated in such a way that it strengthens or protects the conclusion instead of opening it up”. The “Not to be confused with” field matters more here than elsewhere, because the expression, made of everyday words, gives the reader the impression of understanding it.

The regime belongs to the notice, in its language. The same notion can be at B in one language and at A in another, either because the language lacks the same established term or because the available evidence differs. The Portuguese glossary thus places deferência under regime A, whereas Spanish and German place the notion under B: research pointed to a use in administrative law, but the source could not be read. With no source read, the notice says nothing about it, and the point remains open.

To say that an expression had no meaning before ARGUS is to assert that nobody used it. That is the hardest claim to establish, and the audits often caught it out.

Cross-audit, which names the second level of contradiction provided for by the protocol, was first classified under regime C in French, English and German. In all three languages, the expression turned out to be attested before ARGUS in quality and audit practice. The three notices moved to regime A, and now mention that earlier use.

The work on German laid down a rule, since taken up in Portuguese. An entry is classified C only if three verifications have been carried out and recorded: the dictionaries consulted do not give the expression; research found no established use in any field; the protocol itself constructs the notion. Failing that, the entry stays under regime A, where the notice quotes the meaning of each of the words that make up the expression. This cautious choice asserts no absence.

The rule did not work at the first attempt. The first German version had 17 entries under C. The eight major findings of its audit all concerned entries under that regime: the negative searches had not covered domain literatures such as law, quality or literary studies. Seven of those entries moved to A, one to B, and nine remain under C.

The effect shows in the figures. Regime C accounts for 44 entries out of 109 in French, 44 out of 108 in English, 46 out of 115 in Spanish and 33 out of 94 in Italian; it accounts for 9 out of 134 in German and 10 out of 135 in Portuguese. The gap comes from the rule: six notions classified C in Spanish, such as the short counter-check or the substitution test, are at A in German and Portuguese. Eight notions remain under C in all three languages, among them locked nuance, adapted propaganda and series conformism.

In version 1.0.0, the first four glossaries were not re-examined under this rule. They had been frozen on 24 September, the day before it was laid down. A frozen glossary is reopened only for a documented defect or an inventory decision. An entry classified C under the old rule may still be right; its evidence is weaker than what is required today, and only fresh research, followed by an audit, would show whether it holds. For the 167 entries concerned, this review was not carried out in version 1.0.0; it is among the work reserved for a later version. The glossaries thus bear the date of their method, and the figures above keep a record of it.

The rule on claims about usage was laid down during the Spanish work, and the writer broke it the same day. The zetética notice stated that research had found no established use of the pair zetética / dogmática in Spanish-language legal literature. The counter-audit produced four documents attesting it, including a Peruvian law review and the programme of a legal philosophy conference. The lesson stuck: a search that finds nothing establishes nothing.

Claims about frequency follow the same rule. The Spanish glossary said of one sense that it was “el más frecuente”, and of one word that it “no tiene uso corriente en castellano”. The reference dictionary does not measure frequency: the six claims of this kind were removed, and each was replaced by what the dictionary records or does not record. For hombre de paja, the replacement strengthened the warning: the dictionary gives the phrase only the sense of front man.

In the German and Portuguese glossaries, every external source is quoted word for word, with the work, the entry, the sense, the URL and the date of consultation. Each of the two glossaries contains more than 450 URLs of this kind. For matiz bloqueado, the Portuguese equivalent of locked nuance, the notice states that the expression appears neither in the Priberam dictionary, consulted on 25 September, nor in the Infopédia dictionary, consulted on the 26th, then quotes the meaning of each of the two words. The French notice for the same notion, written two weeks earlier, confines itself to two sentences, with no source. A source that is unreadable, paywalled or blocked is not worked around; the point remains open. Two documents that the reading tool could not reach were supplied as PDFs by a project lead, then read.

Notices are written in working files, in groups of entries. A script assembles them into a glossary, checks its structure and its cross-references, and refuses to overwrite an existing version. The assembled file is never corrected by hand: every correction is made in the working files, and the glossary is then reassembled. The French glossary went through seventeen versions, the Portuguese one two.

Each move from one version to the next is described in a migration document: the notices modified, those that remain byte-for-byte identical, and the hash of each file. Between its versions 0.1 and 0.2, the Portuguese glossary added two entries, removed one and modified thirty in the fields announced, and all the others remained identical.

Freezing takes place on the explicit agreement of a human project lead. A frozen glossary is no longer modified; a correction opens a new version. It was the actual rendering of the page that revealed, in Italian, a defect the proofreading had missed: a sentence in bold containing a word in italics was displayed incorrectly. Since then, before freezing, the candidate is run through the generator that produces the site page, and the page produced from the frozen file must be byte-for-byte identical to the one produced from the validated candidate.

Each glossary was audited by another AI, on a package whose contents are verified by script before it is sent: the glossary, the protocol of its language, the migration and, for German and Portuguese, the sources read. No finding is accepted on the auditor’s word. It is verified in the protocol or in the source before being conceded, and whatever could not be verified is declared.

This check works both ways. The German audit gave 2020 as the date of an article published in 2021, and 1917 for a publication from 1921; both dates were corrected before use. For another entry, the auditor proposed regime B; verification showed that the established meaning concerned a different object, the entry moved to A, and the following audit withdrew its recommendation.

What the audits found falls into a few families: C regimes without proof, claims about usage without a source, conditions of the protocol missing from a notice, quotations transcribed incorrectly. The Portuguese audit found 29 quotations from the protocol whose internal quotation marks had been changed; the instruction came from the writing brief, and the glossary did not declare it.

Some defects escape the audit, because no checklist covers them. The final check of the Spanish glossary found two lines of arbitration, in French, left in the body of two notices.

Finally, the project’s tracking notes keep a list of the writer’s errors, however they were found: the counting instrument was wrong five times before it was right, and a page 96 had been cited as page 95.

The quotations in the German and Portuguese glossaries reproduce the text of the pages as the reading tool returned it. In German, a randomly drawn sample was reread on the page; the Portuguese glossary declares that checking against the original remains to be done.

Each glossary declares its open points in a working note, 19 for Portuguese; these notes are in the frozen files, and the site page does not display them.

Nor were the first four glossaries revisited under the rule on dated quotations. The French and English glossaries still refer, a few times, to a point “3.A” that the protocol never names that way.

The work could go on forever: there will always be something to improve. In September, the French glossary was frozen four times and reopened three times, between its working versions 0.10 and 0.17. So that the work can come to an end, the six frozen glossaries now form a common version, 1.0.0. A frozen version is no longer modified; known improvements are reserved for a later version, which will deal with them together and carry a new number.

No overall measurement was made; what follows is qualitative.

The most expensive part was rereading the whole protocol, which runs to nearly 1,100 lines. During the work on German, several AI agents launched at the same time each reread the protocol and their own history at every step; some were cut off by the usage limit before they had written up their work, which was lost. Audits are costly too, with the preparation of their package and the verification of each finding. Dictionary lookups, on the other hand, cost little.

Three choices reduced the spending on the Portuguese glossary. A script extracts from the protocol only the paragraphs in which each term appears, and the writer reads only those. Dictionary research is separated from the writing and handed to a lighter model. Only one agent works at a time, and an agent that is cut off is resumed where it stopped. The Portuguese glossary thus cost markedly less than the German one, though it missed its target of costing half as much. What still weighed on it: carrying out the first steps in a single conversation, where the protocol and the tool outputs were reread at every call.