How the record is established

Source → version → authority → reconciliation → evidence state → implementation question

Every conclusion Intelplexis publishes or delivers travels that chain in order. Nothing skips a step, and the step a statement reached is always visible.

1. Source. A named publisher and a retrievable document. Registered explicitly; an unregistered page is never cited.
2. Version. Which issue of that document, retrieved when. Earlier versions are retained, because the absence of a statement in an earlier version is often what proves a later one was added.
3. Authority. What that publisher is authoritative for. A publisher is authoritative for its own position and for nothing else.
4. Reconciliation. Where two official positions stand together, both are recorded, in order, before either is read.
5. Evidence state. What the record now supports — using the vocabulary below.
6. Implementation question. What a participant still has to establish, or put to the provider in writing.

The vocabulary

Current

In force at the last check date.

Clarified

Still in force, but its scope or reading has been narrowed by a later source.

Superseded

No longer in force. Kept, never deleted, and always naming what superseded it.

Contradicted

Two official positions stand together and do not agree. Both are recorded; neither is resolved by assertion.

Attributed

A named third party's account of another organisation's position, restated with its attribution intact. Never promoted to a published fact, and never authority for the position it describes.

Not established

The record does not settle it. This is a finding, not a failure.

Evidence gap

A document exists and is referenced, but cannot be read — held behind authentication or refused. Its contents are never inferred from any other account of what it is said to contain.

Retrieval is not verification

Fetching a page and verifying the assertion that rests on it are different acts, and they are dated separately. A successful retrieval never advances the verification date of a statement it did not confirm.

Scan every day. Publish only what the evidence justifies.

SR2026 Intelligence monitors a controlled list of public sources on SWIFT Standards Release 2026 and the ISO 20022 payments migration. Every registered source is checked every day. Most days nothing is published, and that is the intended result.

1. A controlled list of sources

Every monitored source is registered explicitly, with its organisation, its type, the topics it covers and its authority tier. Sources are added only by a deliberate change to the registry. Nothing is found by open searching, and an unregistered page is never cited. The list is public: monitored sources.

Authority is recorded for every source and shown on every quotation. Tier 1 sources are authoritative requirement, standards and market-practice sources. Tier 2 sources are public implementation guidance from implementing institutions. Tier 3 sources are specialist media and secondary intelligence. A Tier 3 source is never presented as authoritative evidence of a requirement.

2. Every state is kept

Each retrieval of a source is kept as an immutable snapshot, identified by a content hash. A later retrieval never overwrites an earlier one. A failed retrieval is recorded as a failure, never as "no change".

3. Change is detected by plain code

Each new snapshot is compared with the previous state of the same source. Formatting, navigation and other boilerplate changes are set aside. Changes that touch dates, obligations, deadlines or identifiers are always examined further. No model is used to decide whether anything changed.

4. Machine assistance, only when there is something to judge

When a source has genuinely changed, a language model (Claude, made by Anthropic) assists with three tasks: judging whether the change is material to implementers, analysing its implementation implications, and drafting a structured article. The model sees only the text captured from registered sources. It cannot search, browse or fetch anything else.

An article is built from separate kinds of statement, and each is labelled: source facts, each backed by an exact quotation; Intelplexis interpretation; open questions; and limitations — what the evidence does not establish.

5. Checks that do not rely on the model

Before anyone reviews a draft, code checks it. Every quotation must appear word for word in the captured source. Every date, identifier and quantity must appear in the evidence it rests on. Facts about requirements, deadlines, applicability and exceptions must rest on a Tier 1 source. A draft that fails any check is not put forward for publication.

6. A person decides

Nothing is published automatically. Every article is reviewed and approved, edited, or rejected by Philip Kalibuyeli. Human edits are checked again. Articles are attributed to Intelplexis Research, with the note "Machine-assisted analysis. Reviewed and approved by Philip Kalibuyeli." Machine-drafted text is never presented as personally written.

7. Published intelligence is versioned

A published article is never silently changed. An update creates a new version, with its date and the reason for it, and earlier versions are preserved. Every article names the source snapshots its quotations were taken from.

Earlier research — method history

An earlier version of this desk defined a fourth article class, Candidate Operational Precedent: an implementation path that at least two independent institutions had each described publicly. It was built from public sources only and always required human approval. It is no longer a published class and no longer appears as a filter. The current classes are source update, implementation note and source reconciliation. The research background it came from is retained at operational precedent, as method history rather than as a current offering.

What this is not

SR2026 Intelligence is independent implementation analysis. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Swift, which remains authoritative for its standards. It publishes no compliance or readiness verdict, does not state whether a requirement applies to any firm, and is not legal, regulatory or compliance advice.