File an objection

Objection review is one of two matters the committee decides. Identify the specific record, state what is wrong, and cite a public source. Every objection and its resolution is published in the corrections log.

Who decides, and how it resolves

Objections are decided by an anonymous committee, domiciled in Switzerland and kept anonymous by design so that no firm or interest can influence a decision. The committee sits twice a month, on the 14th and the 28th; ahead of each sitting an AI agent triages the queue against the evidence standard, but it never decides — the committee makes and signs every resolution. Each objection is assessed against the same standard the protocol applies to itself: no public source, no change. Every objection resolves to one of four classes, recorded in public.

upheld

Upheld

The record is corrected.

partially_upheld

Partially upheld

Part of the record is corrected; the remainder stands.

rejected

Rejected

The evidence does not support the change.

out_of_scope

Out of scope

No error is identified; the matter is methodology, routed to governance.

A disagreement with a position that identifies no error in evidence, computation, or standing is recorded as out_of_scope — the methodology is the venue for that, through governance. Resolved objections appear in the public corrections log.

Submit

This form files an objection for committee review. It does not change any record on its own — corrections take effect only in a later snapshot, after review. Fields marked required must be completed.

Record reference required

The firm, table, or record you are objecting to. A record URL, a registry ID, or a table and firm name.

Scope

What kind of record the objection concerns.

The disputed fact required

State precisely what is wrong and what the record should say instead. Describe the specific fact, not a general disagreement.

Requested correction

Optionally, the specific change you are asking for — the value or wording the record should carry once corrected.

Your relationship to the record

Optional and non-identifying — for example, "the firm", "a competitor", "a researcher", or "no relationship". It informs recusal; it is never published and never linked to any record.

Public source URL required

A public web address that shows the correct fact. It must begin with http:// or https://. Where possible, cite an archived copy as well.

Verification

Complete the check below to confirm you are not automated. It adds a short-lived token to the submission and stores nothing about you.

The verification challenge needs JavaScript. With scripts disabled, send the same details to clerk@constitut.com for the record; the standards are identical.

Decided at the committee's next sitting (the 14th or 28th) — at most about two weeks away. The resolution is public.

Constitut publishes positions computed from public, archived evidence under a disclosed rule set. Objection review is one of the two matters the committee decides — the other is nominations; nothing else is discretionary. This policy states what may be objected to, how objections are handled, and the service standard the protocol holds itself to. Every objection and its resolution is published in the corrections log.

What may be objected to

Evidence — a cited source is misread, misattributed, out of date, or no longer public, or an archived copy does not support the claim drawn from it.
Score — a computation does not follow the published rules for the evidence on record.
Standing — a tenure, presence, or record figure does not follow from the ranking history.
Rule — a proposal to change the methodology itself. Rule objections are routed to the governance process, not resolved as corrections (see protocol/GOVERNANCE.md).

Positions are the protocol's opinion, computed from the disclosed methodology applied to publicly available evidence. A disagreement with a position that identifies no error in evidence, computation, or standing is recorded as out_of_scope — the methodology is the venue for that, through governance.

What is required

Every objection must identify the specific record and, where the claim is that a fact is wrong, cite a public source (and, where possible, an archived copy) that shows the correct fact. Constitut assesses objections against the same evidence standard it applies to itself: no public source, no change.

How objections are handled

Acknowledge. Every objection is acknowledged within 7 days.
Triage. During each snapshot cycle, open objections are drafted into assessments against the evidence standard.
Decide. Each objection resolves to one of four classes:
- upheld — the record is corrected.
- partially_upheld — part of the record is corrected; the remainder stands.
- rejected — the evidence does not support the change.
- out_of_scope — no error is identified; the matter is methodology, routed to governance.
Publish. The objection (submitter anonymized), its resolution, and what changed — with the commit reference — are appended to the corrections log and rendered publicly. Resolutions are not edited after publication.

Service standard

Acknowledged within 7 days of receipt.
Resolved by the next snapshot at the latest.
Corrections take effect in the snapshot following resolution and are recorded as signed commits, so the change is auditable against the history.

Adverse public records

Where an objection concerns an adverse public record scored under P2 (Credibility & Public Record), the pre-publication notice workflow applies: the firm is notified and may object before the affected snapshot is published. Adverse entries are recorded neutrally — citation only, no commentary — and their weight fades after twelve clean quarters, per the scoring rules.

Submission

Objections are submitted through the form on the site (the only interactive surface) or to clerk@ for the record. Evidence submissions that add to a firm's record, rather than dispute it, are welcome through the same channel and are held to the same public-source standard.