# OfflistMe Broker Evidence Roadmap

Evidence snapshot date: 2026-08-13

This public roadmap explains how OfflistMe is improving evidence quality across 1,018 broker profiles. It is a research and maintenance plan, not a claim that every gap will be filled immediately and not proof that a request was sent, accepted, completed, or that information will not reappear.

## Current route state

- **524** catalog routes have an independent route observation.
- **461** provider workflow-source URLs were observed, but their route semantics still require review.
- Those URL observations now have read-only semantic dispositions: **217** first-party request-route candidates, **46** cross-domain or processor candidates requiring entity confirmation, **59** privacy/context pages, **29** registry/research pages, **107** ambiguous pages, and **3** blocked or unreachable pages. None are automatically promoted.
- The public knowledge index exposes **461** semantic dispositions plus each profile's source count, observation count, missing fields, entity-match state, and next evidence action.
- **33** URL observations failed or were unreachable in the observation environment and remain queued for independent recheck.
- The catalog also records **524** read-only web route checks, **493** DNS-checked email routes, and **1** documented manual form.

The current snapshot uses explicit evidence states instead of an undifferentiated route-observation count. Counts can change when bounded checks are rerun; they never convert reachability into a removal outcome.

## Prioritized evidence work

| Priority | Workstream | Scope | Proof required | Boundary |
| --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| P0 | Failed route rechecks | 33 profiles or records | Independent browser or HTTP observation of the recorded provider URL, with error, redirect, and access-blocker evidence. | A failed check is an environment observation, not proof that the broker route is unavailable. |
| P0 | Route-semantics review | 461 profiles or records | First-party page review that identifies whether the observed URL is an opt-out route, privacy context page, processor route, or unrelated page. | HTTP 200 or a provider-owned URL alone does not promote a submission route. |
| P1 | Workflow detail enrichment | 0 profiles or records | Source-backed required-field purpose, format, jurisdiction, sensitivity, match impact, channel details, and route prerequisites. | Document the minimum user action and identity boundary; do not invent steps or imply submission. |
| P1 | Entity and suppression mapping | 0 profiles or records | Official corporate, registry, legal, or provider evidence for operator, parent, aliases, related brands, and suppression relationships. | A shared domain or email route does not prove common ownership or shared suppression. |
| P1 | Verified contact evidence | 0 profiles or records | First-party contact source plus a bounded reachability check where appropriate; mailbox acceptance remains unverified. | DNS and MX checks do not prove that an inbox exists or accepts a request. |
| P2 | Freshness and provenance | 1,018 profiles or records | Keep source-check dates, next verification dates, source URLs, capture method, and retracted observations visible for every profile. | A current date is not a substitute for source evidence or completed workflow proof. |

## Field-level completeness signals

The generated coverage summary currently reports **0** profiles without a recorded parent entity, **0** without a recorded suppression group, **0** without aliases, **0** without verified-contact evidence, **0** with required-field gaps, and **0** with optional or contextual gaps. These are missingness signals, not assertions that the information does not exist.

User-authorized outcome fields—such as a user-confirmed submission, broker response, case ID, deletion confirmation, or relisting observation—are deliberately not a proactive public backlog. They may be recorded only when a user explicitly supplies or authorizes the relevant evidence, with data minimization and a clear provenance trail.

## Verification rules

1. Prefer provider-published or official registry sources for identity, workflow, and route claims.
2. Keep route reachability, route semantics, mailbox acceptance, request delivery, broker response, deletion, and relisting as separate evidence states.
3. Preserve source dates, next verification dates, conflicts, access blockers, and retracted observations.
4. Publish only claims supported by the stated source and observation method.

Explore the [broker knowledge base](https://www.offlist.me/broker-knowledge), [Markdown broker index](https://www.offlist.me/broker-knowledge-index.md), [JSON broker index](https://www.offlist.me/broker-knowledge-index.json), [evidence methodology](https://www.offlist.me/methodology), and [data broker observatory](https://www.offlist.me/data-broker-observatory).