Corrections log

A bare confirmation vote could not support an adverse reading on his devolution promise.

His promise to push for an independent review to cut deputy numbers by 50%, introduce executive government, and improve transparency carried a link to a procedural confirmation vote whose recorded text does not identify what was actually being confirmed - too thin to sustain the adverse claim the model had drawn from it. Downgraded to low relevance so it no longer weighs on the promise's alignment. Applied during the first days of pre-launch deputy review, before this log existed; found on 2026-08-22 by the drift check while auditing this log for entries the database doesn't account for.

Vacant Property Levy verdict miscited an unrelated amendment.

The AI-generated rationale said the one amendment debated on his Productivity Incentivisation Tax package "was then heavily defeated 30 votes to seven." That 30-7 defeat was actually a separate, standalone amendment (co-sponsored with Deputy Aidan Matthews) to strip GST, the Social Security rise and the Transport Tax out of the Tax Reform proposition entirely - not part of his PIT package. His actual PIT amendments (including the Underutilised Property Levy) were blocked without debate by a procedural vote, 18-17. Corrected the rationale to describe both votes accurately.

GST promise wording overstated his actual manifesto pledge.

Stored as "Candidate will focus on economic growth and fairness to avoid introducing GST" - his real manifesto wording is hedged and conditional: "only if we can boost the economy fairly can we avoid the worst of GST." The extraction had dropped "the worst of", turning a conditional pledge into an absolute one. Corrected the promise summary and the matching language in two vote-link rationales and one adverse explanation, so the page is internally consistent. His alignment (mixed) was not changed - whether opposing a total GST ban is really inconsistent with a promise to avoid only "the worst of" GST, once read at its correct wording, is a genuine interpretive question left to editorial judgment rather than resolved unilaterally.

A single half-day illness was counted as six separate absences.

She was ill for half a day on 25 June 2026. That afternoon’s sitting unusually took one policy letter’s propositions as six separate divisions, so her one missed sitting was recorded as six independent "absent" ballots, each counting toward her attendance rate. Marked those six ballots (and only those - not her other, undisputed absences) as excused, dropping them from her attendance sample without altering the underlying voting record.

Notable Achievements list was missing a figure and used a stale credit.

Added the 2025 States surplus figure his profile was missing, and rewrote a campaign-group credit to past tense since no current coverage shows it is still active.

A near-unanimous procedural vote had been scored against their cannabis promises.

Their 25 March 2026 Pour vote on a motion to withdraw a cannabis-reform Requête had been scored as breaking their promise to support legalisation. The Requête’s own lead sponsor, Marc Leadbeater, withdrew it himself after a code-of-conduct complaint made him unable to lead a credible debate; the withdrawal passed 35-1, near-unanimously, and press coverage confirms the debate was about the withdrawal circumstances, not cannabis policy itself. Downgraded this vote to low relevance (context only, not scored) for all four - it is not a fair test of anyone’s stance on cannabis policy. Deputy Leadbeater’s own link was deliberately left scored: see the next entry.

His cannabis-vote link stays scored, unlike the four deputies above.

As the Requête’s own lead sponsor and the one accused (via a code-of-conduct complaint) of not disclosing his family’s cannabis-company shareholdings, his own conduct - not the procedural vote itself - is arguably what affected his promise, so his link was restored to high relevance rather than treated as an unfair-test context like the other four. The underlying complaint was not settled at the time of this correction; the public-facing explanation describes the vote and lets readers judge rather than asserting the allegation as fact.

Adverse explanation omitted context she supplied from her own Hansard remarks.

On 26 February 2026 she voted Pour on Proposition 1b, setting the rate and food treatment a GST would take (5%, including all foodstuffs) if introduced. The original adverse explanation read this as breaking her promise to prioritise corporate tax reform before supporting GST, without noting that the parent Proposition 1 was itself conditional on a later States decision on whether to adopt GST at all, and that she told the chamber this vote did not commit her to a future vote for GST itself - only that "it would be irresponsible not to take part in this part of the process" so as to help shape the tax if it does go ahead. Rewrote the explanation to include that context, sourced from her quoted Hansard remarks. The vote and its direction are unchanged - only the framing was incomplete.

An unrelated citation and a stale verdict, raised in a follow-up email.

Removed a PFAS soil-remediation vote cited against his airport runway-extension promise - it funds contamination cleanup, not runway extension or new routes, and does not belong there. Separately, refreshed his Fair Share Tax verdict, which had only covered developments up to June 2026: added that his Fair Contribution Levy amendment was discarded without debate, 18-17, alongside three other amendments in his tax package. The underlying "Kept" and "Abstained" labels on his page were reviewed and are unchanged.

GST promise was "mixed" because of a downstream vote wrongly weighted against him.

He voted to rescind GST outright (Amendment 1) and separately voted for Proposition 1b, which sets GST’s rate, food-scope and a compensation scheme given GST was already proceeding (first approved in principle by resolutions dated 8 November 2024). Voting to kill GST and also voting for broad, compensated terms if it happens anyway is not a contradiction - only Amendment 1 is a direct test of opposing GST’s introduction. Downgraded Proposition 1b to low relevance on this promise, matching a correction already applied to a related proposition on the same promise. His alignment moved from "mixed" to "kept".

GST promise reviewed alongside the Van Katwyk fix above - "mixed" confirmed as intentional, not a bug.

His promise is qualified - to oppose GST "as a primary taxation measure" - narrower than a flat anti-GST pledge. His Contre vote on Amendment 1 (an unconditional, total rescind) was scored consistent, but Proposition 1b, which sets GST’s rate and food-scope if it proceeds, was left scored against him: opposing an outright ban does not necessarily mean abandoning opposition to GST as the primary mechanism, and Prop 1b is the vote that actually sets GST as that primary mechanism. Decision: alignment stays "mixed", locked so a future re-link does not silently regenerate a different reading.

The entire 15-17 July 2026 Tax Reform sitting was missing from the vote record. Every deputy was affected.

A fault in how we read the States’ electronic voting record meant nothing had been ingested since 17 July 2026. Each nightly run reported success while writing nothing: it kept re-reading the same propositions that carried no division (tabled, withdrawn, or ruled out of scope), never got past them to the divisions that did happen, and started over the next night. Twenty-two divisions from the three-day Tax Reform debate on P.2026/49 - including Amendments 1, 2, 14 and 19, four separate attempts to stop or strip out GST - were absent from every deputy’s page. All 22 have now been loaded and every promise re-tested against them, so some alignments and attendance figures have changed. Re-testing every promise also re-drafted every "voted against their own promise" finding on the site, so all 77 were put back through the same adversarial editorial review used in August: 41 were judged too indirect or too debatable to publish and were withdrawn, affecting 26 promises across the Assembly. Speaking-activity pages were never affected: the Hansard record for that sitting was already in place. Found while checking a citation dispute raised by Deputy David Goy, who was right that the record was incomplete.

Two text errors on his page, found by reading it rather than the database.

His Standard Charge vote had its recorded direction corrected earlier that day, but the explanation underneath was still the one written for the old, inverted reading - so the page showed "voting pour delivers this" directly above a sentence saying the same vote worked against the promise. Rewrote the explanation to match. Separately, his vacant-property-levy verdict dated the procedural vote that discarded four of his tax amendments to 17 July 2026; Hansard puts it on 16 July, where Deputy Inder’s motion under Rule 24(6) carried 18-17. The 18-17 figure itself, press-sourced until then, is confirmed correct - only the date was wrong. That division appears nowhere in the States’ electronic voting record: the wi-fi failed mid-sitting and the Greffier took the vote manually, which is also why our own vote data could not have caught it.

Eleven promises were left showing a harsher verdict than their evidence supported, a side-effect of the previous day’s editorial review.

When the 12 August review withdrew a promise’s "voted against their own promise" findings, the code that then recalculated that promise’s verdict counted every remaining vote - including votes already marked on the page as too partial or indirect to count towards the score. On eleven promises, one for each of the deputies named here, that pulled a low-relevance vote into the tally and pushed the verdict to broken or mixed. Fixed the calculation so it applies the same relevance filter every other part of the site uses, and recalculated every promise on the site from its current links; only these eleven differed. Most moved back to "kept", and two - Deputy Kay-Mouat’s and Deputy de Sausmarez’s - moved to "no recorded vote", meaning no vote yet bears on the promise at all. Found by reading Deputy Kay-Mouat’s page, where a "broken" badge sat directly above a delivery verdict that said the promise was in progress.

Same downstream-vote error as Deputy Van Katwyk’s, plus his own words restored in place of a paraphrase.

He raised three points by email. Two did not hold up on investigation - the Budget 2025 vote cited on his Fair Share Tax promise does belong there, and his vacant-property-levy promise genuinely has no recorded vote bearing on it - and his page is unchanged on both. The third did: his GST promise carried a link to Proposition 1b, the downstream vote on a possible GST’s rate and food scope, which is not a test of opposing GST’s introduction. That is the same error corrected for Deputy Van Katwyk the day before; it had regenerated on his page and was missed because he was absent for the February divisions, so it never moved his verdict. Downgraded that link to low relevance and suppressed a duplicate link to the same Budget vote on the Fair Share Tax promise. Separately, both responses shown on his page in his name had been AI-paraphrased from his emails, and one paraphrase introduced an error of its own: it said his amendments were "ruled outside the scope of the debate" when in fact a motion claiming they went beyond the proposition was moved and carried 18-17, so no ruling was made. Replaced both with his verbatim wording, as he had asked on 4 August that he be quoted directly or not at all.

His page dated the same procedural vote to two different days.

The 12 August correction above fixed the date of the 18-17 vote that discarded his tax amendments on his vacant-property-levy verdict, but the same division is described a second time on his Fair Share Tax verdict, and that copy kept the wrong date - so one page dated a single vote both 16 and 17 July. Corrected the second reference to 16 July 2026, per Hansard for that day, and dropped the implication that the amendments were tabled that morning; they were lodged ahead of the three-day debate. Found while auditing this log for completeness. No verdict, vote or score changed.

GST promise reconsidered again, moving from "mixed" to "kept" - reversing the 12 August call above.

Raised in a follow-up email disputing the "mixed" reading. On review, two separate issues turned up. First, a genuine contradiction: Amendment 2 (16 July) is word-for-word the same instrument as Amendment 1 (26 February) bar one missing space - both an unconditional, total rescind of GST - yet had been scored in opposite directions. Corrected Amendment 2 to match Amendment 1 (Contre scored consistent), and applied the same reading to Amendment 14 and Amendment 19, two further unconditional-exclusion motions on the same package. Second, Proposition 1b, which sets GST at a standard rate of 5%: on reflection, a 5% rate does not make GST Guernsey’s primary taxation measure - the UK’s VAT, a genuinely primary consumption tax, is levied at 20%, and income and corporate tax remain Guernsey’s primary revenue base - so voting Pour on the rate is compatible with, not contrary to, a promise to oppose GST specifically "as a primary taxation measure". Reversed Prop 1b from scored-against to scored-consistent, reversing the 12 August decision to leave it as the one test of the promise. All five scored links now read consistent, and the promise recomputes from "mixed" to "kept".

A single surgery-recovery absence had been recorded as 28 separate "Absent" ballots.

Raised by email: he underwent major surgery on 8 June 2026 and was still medically signed off during the 23-25 June sitting. Unlike committee meetings, States sittings cannot be joined remotely, so that one missed sitting was recorded as 28 independent non-participating ballots (2 on 23 June, 20 on 24 June, 6 on 25 June), each counting toward his attendance rate. Marked all 28 excused, dropping them from his attendance denominator without altering the underlying vote record - the same mechanism used for Deputy Burford’s 7 August correction above.

His own account added to three items, in his words, alongside the existing figures and rulings.

Three requests from a follow-up email. First: his Home Affairs committee attendance still reads 80% (12 of 15 meetings) - the 15 August correction above only excused his States-chamber ballots for the 23-25 June sitting, a separate dataset from committee attendance. He accounts for all three meetings he is shown as not attending: one missed in full during his recovery from surgery on 8 June, and two he was recused from because the committee was considering his own cannabis Requête. Added his account as a deputyResponse, a new field on this dataset mirroring the one already used on vote links and verdicts (see 4 August above) - the 80% figure is unchanged. Second: his cannabis-Requête withdrawal (see 10 August above) now carries his own account of why he withdrew it - a temporary measure to clear his name against accusations he brought it for personal or family gain, before resubmitting once the matter is resolved. Third: his prescribing/over-prescribing promise verdict now carries his account that he no longer sits on Health & Social Care this term, but remains involved as Home Affairs president, having hosted the Chief Pharmacist and other Misuse of Drugs Advisory Group members at Home Affairs meetings. None of the three changes any score, verdict, alignment or percentage - each is shown as his own words alongside the existing figures, the same way David Goy’s responses have been throughout.

Governance-reforms promise wrongly reverted to "kept" without reading the dissenting vote it was reverted over.

An accidental full re-link across all 39 deputies on 2026-08-19 flipped a batch of promise alignments, and a same-day cleanup pass (2026-08-20) defaulted 19 of them back to an editorial "kept" as low-confidence "single dissenting vote" cases, without individually reading each dissent first. Her promise to support "reforms that improve communication between government and citizens, including accessible data, clearer reporting, and more effective consultation" was one of them. Its one dissenting link is Proposition 2483 (29 Jan 2026), a direct amendment to the Government Work Plan 2026-2029 debate directing the Policy & Resources Committee to publish Work Plan progress in a publicly accessible, auditable format - exactly what this promise commits to. It lost 12-23, and she voted Contre: against the States requiring P&R to be more transparent about its own progress. That is not an ambiguous or off-topic link like the other 18 in the batch - it is a direct, on-topic test she failed, alongside six other linked votes she is consistent on. Reverted the override from "kept" back to "mixed", matching the computed alignment.

Four full-sitting absences explained by a family bereavement, not unexcused non-attendance.

His 22 April, 24-25 June and 17 July 2026 sittings - recorded as 46 separate "absent" ballots - were missed while caring for a terminally ill parent and in the immediate aftermath of her death, confirmed by email, 2026-08-22. Marked those ballots excused, dropping them from his attendance sample without altering the underlying voting record; his participation rate moves from 69% of 245 to 84% of 199. His three partial absences (28 January, 25 February, 20 May 2026 - a handful of individual missed divisions within sittings he otherwise attended) are unrelated and were not disputed.

Two GST citations overstated the vote; two more were two-sided motions.

His conditional promise to oppose GST until businesses and high net worth individuals pay their fair share was scored "broken" on six cited votes. Downgraded four to low relevance (context only): Propositions 1a and 1b (26 February 2026) were both expressly contingent on the States separately deciding in Q2 2026 to adopt Workstream 1 - not votes introducing GST, and the stored rationale for 1b overstated this ("approved introducing GST at 5%"), which he correctly challenged - matching the correction already applied to Lee Van Katwyk and David Goy's equivalent Prop 1b links; Amendment 3 (a GST referendum) and the Sursis (15 July 2026, a procedural delay) are two-sided motions a GST opponent or supporter could each vote either way on, matching the two-sided-motion category already demoted elsewhere. His objections to Amendments 14 (16 July) and 19 (17 July) were not upheld: both texts, on inspection, bear directly on the promise - Amendment 14 removed GST while proceeding with corporate tax measures and directing a new Corporate Levy and Visitor Levy, and Amendment 19's exclusion list opens with GST itself, not only the social security changes his objection described. Those two links remain scored at high relevance and, alone, still roll the promise up to "broken". His full objection is now quoted verbatim (not paraphrased) against all six links, matching the classification the reader sees.

Watchdog-promise citation was actually about the electoral commission workstream.

A reader objection (submitted via the site, no reply address given) challenged the single vote scored against his promise to establish an independent watchdog for public-sector complaints: Proposition 1 of 27 February 2026, which the objection read as being about an electoral commission, not a public-sector ombudsman. Checked against the proposition text: its substance is the States' Assembly & Constitution Committee's workstream to establish an independent Electoral Body, with the complaints-oversight language appearing only as a subordinate "consider the possibility of including a supervisory authority" sub-clause within that workstream - not a decision to establish a watchdog. Downgraded to low relevance so it no longer weighs on the promise's alignment. This was the promise's only linked vote, so it now carries no scored link and shows no recorded vote.

The Jersey growth comparison used a superseded Statistics Jersey vintage, overstating the 2023 growth gap by £40m.

The economy section's Jersey-pace counterfactual was built from Statistics Jersey's "Measuring Jersey's economy: GDP and GVA 2023", which put Jersey's real GDP growth at +12.0% in 2021, +6.2% in 2022 and +7.3% in 2023. Statistics Jersey's successor report, "Jersey's Economy 2024: GDP and GVA" (published 3 October 2025), restated those years to +10.6%, +6.1% and +7.8%. Rebuilt the counterfactual from the current vintage's published real GDP levels rather than its rounded annual percentages, which also removes about £3m of compounding rounding drift and matches how Guernsey's own growth rate is derived here. The 2023 counterfactual falls from £4,171m to £4,131m, the gap against Guernsey's actual £3,488m from £683m to £643m, Jersey's 2013-2023 compound growth rate from 2.4% to 2.3%, and the illustrative spending-power translation from £109m to £103m. Guernsey's 0.6% and the OECD's 2.0% are unchanged, as is the finding that Jersey grew at close to four times Guernsey's pace. The window remains 2013 to 2023 because Guernsey has published no 2024 estimate; a note now records that Jersey's own real GDP fell 0.7% in 2024. The superseded figures had already been quoted in a press release issued to Channel Islands media on 23 August 2026, and a correction was sent to every recipient.

Notable achievements mixed the current States term with the previous one without saying which, and Chris Blin was credited with an amendment he did not table.

Every figure on a deputy profile - amendments tabled, States participation, States votes, written questions - counts only the current term, which began on 1 July 2025. The "Notable achievements" bullets did not: they drew on a deputy's whole time in the States and gave no dates, so an undated achievement from the 2020-25 Assembly read as a contradiction of the current-term figure printed beside it. Nine bullets across eight deputies described work from the previous Assembly and now say so, with the proposition reference and month: John Gollop's "Rectories in Plurality" amendment (March 2025), Sasha Kazantseva-Miller's minimum wage amendment (April 2025), Steve Falla's 15-minute speech limit (January 2025), Yvonne Burford's Alderney runway amendment (April 2025), Charles Parkinson's no-confidence motion (November 2023), Liam McKenna's Bailiff requête (July 2024), Mark Helyar's 30-deputy requête (September 2024), and both of Simon Vermeulen's - his £22m runway amendment (September 2023) and a bullet that ran his current-term tax-reform amendments together with a previous-term minimum wage one, now separated. Chris Blin's was not a dating problem but a wrong claim: his profile said he co-sponsored an amendment on Revised Age Limits for Body Piercing, when the amendment to that proposition was proposed by Deputy Oswald and seconded by Deputy Malik. What Blin did was co-sign the underlying Requête (P.2026/4) as one of its seven signatories, debated on 27 February 2026. A requête is not an amendment, so his "0 Amendments tabled" figure was right and the bullet was wrong; it now describes the requête, and cites the proposition rather than his member page. Vermeulen's runway bullet was also re-sourced: the page it cited was a December 2022 article that does not mention his amendment, so it now cites P.2023/79, the proposition he amended. Each bullet was checked individually against parliament.gg's own record - amendments genuinely tabled this term, including Marc Leadbeater's GST "Reserved Measure" amendment and Munazza Malik's body-piercing amendment, are unchanged.

A re-link of promises to votes changed 35 verdicts across 14 deputies without new evidence; all 35 were reverted the same day.

Verdicts are computed by matching each promise to the recorded divisions that test it, a step that is re-run periodically. The re-run is not deterministic: given the same votes and the same promises it can find links it did not find before, and a link it produces for the first time is treated as counting evidence by default. On 31 August a re-link of 20 deputies did exactly that, moving 35 verdicts across 14 deputies in both directions on no new voting evidence at all - every division involved was already in the record, some from as far back as September 2025. Two deputies acquired a 'broken' verdict they had not previously carried: Rhona Humphreys on opposing GST+ in its current form, and Andy Cameron on establishing a commission to explore alternatives to GST. Others gained or lost verdicts the other way, Tom Rylatt's page alone changing eight. Every one of the 35 was restored the same day to the verdict it carried before the re-link, from a snapshot taken immediately beforehand, and each restored page was checked against that snapshot afterwards. Separately, the same re-link had re-scored the tax motions attached to Jayne Ozanne's promise to pursue a fair tax system, which a 3 August review had already ruled were one contested means to a broadly worded promise and should be shown for context rather than counted; that ruling was reinstated and the motions are now pinned as context, so a later re-link cannot quietly reverse it again. The underlying weakness - that an editorial decision to discount a vote only protects the specific link it was applied to, not a fresh link to the same division - is being addressed in the linking code.

A family matter kept him from the 30 January 2026 sitting.

Raised by the Clerk on his behalf by phone, 2026-09-04. That single missed sitting recorded him "absent" independently on all 19 divisions held that day. Marked those 19 ballots excused, dropping them from his attendance sample without altering the underlying voting record - the same mechanism used for Deputies Burford, Leadbeater and Sloan above.

A GST referendum vote was scored against her promise to work constructively with colleagues.

Her promise to bring professionalism and pragmatism to the States and work constructively with others, regardless of background or politics, was published "broken" on a single division: Amendment 3 of 15 July 2026, which would have deleted the tax propositions and directed a binary Yes/No referendum on GST instead. It lost 14-25 and she voted against it. That vote does not test this promise, for two reasons. Whether to settle tax reform by referendum is itself a contested question of means - a deputy committed to working constructively could vote either way, and a case can be made both that a public Yes/No is the more consultative route and that resolving it in the Assembly with the committees who have to deliver it is; the stored reasoning asserted only the first. And the promise is about conduct rather than policy, which no division records either way. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-link cannot reverse it. This was the promise's only linked vote, so it now carries no scored division and shows no recorded vote rather than a verdict. The same ruling has already been applied to this division for Deputy Rylatt (23 August) and to the tax motions on Deputy Ozanne's fair-tax promise (3 August).

A unanimous Budget vote was still scoring his Fair Share Tax promise “kept” four weeks after we told him it would not be.

His Fair Share Tax promise, a tax justice act reaching stealth income and trust distributions from entities with Guernsey property ties, was scored "kept" on a single division: Budget 2026 Proposition 2 of 5 November 2025, endorsing an increase in the Standard Charge on open-market residents from £40,000 to £50,000. He disputed it by email on 13 August, against his own interest, saying he cared about the accuracy rather than the score. We agreed on 14 August, on two grounds. The Standard Charge is the existing cap on the income tax liability of open-market residents, a different mechanism from the new act this promise describes, and one the promise does not name. The division was also unanimous, Pour 39 to Contre 0, so it cannot show that this deputy in particular delivered anything, being equally true of every member who never made the promise. The correction was written that day and, through our own error, never applied to the live site, so the page went on showing a verdict we had already told him was wrong. It is applied now and pinned, so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. The vote stays on the page as context rather than being deleted, the promise carries no scored division, and it reads "no recorded vote" instead of "kept" - a lower position for him than the error was.

A two-sided commencement motion was scored as an adverse reading on his partial-ownership promise.

His promise to reform partial ownership rules to allow full progression to 100% ownership read "mixed", on the strength of a single division: the 22 October 2025 vote commencing the Open Market Housing Register (Amendment) Law, on which he was scored as voting against delivering. The link's own stored reasoning conceded the vote "may work against or alongside the promise" - it cannot be defensibly assigned a delivery direction, and the 3 August audit had already ruled the sibling division of that same October motion context-only for exactly this reason. A later re-matching found this division as a fresh link the earlier ruling did not reach, and scored it as counting evidence, which is the weakness described in the 31 August entry above. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. His two votes to enable the Open Market Part A inscriptions policy, both carried 33 to nil on 24 June 2026, remain, so the promise now reads "kept".

A change to the evidence bar silently withdrew the "broken" verdict on his conditional GST promise; the 14 September ruling has been restored.

His promise that business and high-net-worth individuals should pay their fair share before a consumption tax such as GST is imposed was reviewed on 14 September and held "broken", on his votes against Amendment 14 (16 July 2026), which would have removed GST from the tax package while proceeding with the corporate tax measures and directing a new corporate levy, and against Amendment 19 (17 July 2026), whose first exclusion was the introduction of GST itself. The same day the scorecard adopted a stricter evidence bar: a vote now counts against a promise only once it has been separately adjudicated a clear breach. That adjudication runs in daily batches and had not reached these two votes when the record was re-matched on 16 September, so both were set aside and the promise fell to "no recorded vote" with no new voting evidence. That is a fault in how the bar was introduced, not a change of judgement. The two votes have now been recorded as clear breaches on the reasoning given on 14 September, and pinned so a later re-matching cannot drop them, and the promise again reads "broken". The 23 August ruling that the 15 July referendum amendment is a two-sided motion shown for context only, which the same re-matching had also lost, was restored at the same time. Deputy Rylatt disputes the reading of Amendments 14 and 19 and has said he will provide a statement, which will be published alongside the verdict when it arrives.

Her vote against the final GST proposition was scored the wrong way round on her conditional GST promise.

Her fair-taxation promise supports GST only after corporate tax reform and the closing of income-tax loopholes. After the final Tax Reform 2026 vote on 2 October, the automated linking read her Contre vote on Proposition 1, the proposition that directs implementation of GST, as working against that promise. Because the conditions in her pledge had not been met, declining to introduce GST is what the pledge asks for, so the vote is now scored as consistent with it. The verdict stays "kept"; the link and the votes on the related GST amendments have been fixed so a later re-run cannot reverse them.

His GST+ promise was read as support for the package, when it set conditions on it. Changed from kept to broken.

His manifesto said the GST+ proposal "cannot be implemented unless it has wider public support", that it "must be clearly explained" and that it must "be part of a broader, fairer tax strategy". The automated linking read this as support for GST+, so his Pour vote on Tax Reform 2026 Proposition 1 on 2 October, the proposition that directs implementation of the GST package, was scored as keeping the promise. Read as written, the promise makes implementation conditional, and the scorecard found no test of public support for the package before that vote, so the Pour vote works against it. The verdict is now "broken" by editorial ruling, with the reason published on his page; the automated tally (six votes consistent, one not) is still shown beside it. His earlier votes against scrapping GST+ remain consistent with the promise, which did not commit him to stopping it.

A re-run moved his own conditional GST promise from broken to mixed after the final GST vote; the broken verdict has been restored by editorial ruling.

His promise that business and high-net-worth individuals should "pay their fair share before a consumption tax (such as GST) is imposed on islanders" was held "broken" on 14 September. After the final Tax Reform 2026 vote on 2 October the record was re-matched, and two links to the 2026 Budget (November 2025), which changed the tax treatment of shareholder loans, were counted as consistent, so the promise read "mixed". On 2 October he voted Pour on Proposition 1, which directs that the GST package be implemented, while the corporate tax regime was unchanged: the Tax Reform 2026 policy letter kept Zero-10 and did not pursue Zero-15. The shareholder-loan change is a step towards the condition he set, not the condition met, so the verdict is "broken" by editorial ruling, with the reason published on his page and the automated tally still shown beside it. This is his own pledge; his separate Forward Guernsey party pledge on GST+ is also "broken". Deputy Rylatt disputes the reading of this promise, and his statement will be published alongside the verdict when it arrives.

A vote choosing between two versions of GST no longer counts against his anti-GST promise. Verdict stays mixed.

A reader challenged the mixed verdict on his promise "GST - NO thank you!", pointing out that he voted against Tax Reform 2026 Proposition 1 on 2 October. That vote already counted as keeping the promise. The challenge did show that Proposition 1b on 26 February 2026 was scored against him when it only chose between two versions of GST (5% with food taxed and a larger relief payment, or 6% with retail food zero-rated), not whether GST should be introduced. It is now context only, the same ruling applied to Lee Van Katwyk and David Goy in August. The verdict stays mixed because on the same day he voted against Amendment 1, which would have agreed that GST shall not be introduced; he told the Assembly he would keep "all the options on the table" until the final debate. Eleven votes now count as consistent with the promise and one does not.

The 26 February vote on Proposition 1b no longer counts for or against any promise about whether GST should be introduced. No published verdict changed.

Following the Garry Collins challenge, every promise linked to Proposition 1b of 26 February 2026 was checked. Proposition 1b chose between two versions of GST (5% with all food taxed and a £520/£860 relief payment, or 6% with retail food zero-rated and £400/£670); it did not decide whether GST should be introduced. It is now context only on eleven promises whose test is that question, whether they oppose GST or support the GST+ package, and on one promise about corporate tax that it never bore on. Each of these promises lost one counted vote; none changed verdict. Proposition 1b still counts where it is the direct test, such as Aidan Matthews's promise that GST should never apply to food.

His GST pledge was missing from the scorecard. It has been added, with the verdict held back until the condition in it is ruled on.

The scorecard read most deputies' promises from their election2025.gg candidate pages. Deputy Parkinson's page carries three commitments; his entry in the printed 2025 combined candidate manifesto book also says "I am opposed to GST" and "I oppose the introduction or increase of taxes on the resident population until we ensure that companies doing business on Guernsey pay their fair share" (p.232), under the heading "Why am I opposed to a GST at this time?". Both are now on his page, cited to the book. Because the pledge is conditional, whether it was kept depends on whether companies were made to pay their fair share before GST was approved, which is an editorial question the vote record alone cannot settle, so neither promise is scored yet. The same comparison against the book added further promises that the candidate pages had missed for 30 other deputies; those are scored in the usual way.

The reasoning behind her GST ruling has been corrected, and two votes that did not test her promises are now context only. The verdict is unchanged.

Deputy Hansmann Rouxel asked for her record to be corrected, and three of her points held up. First, the ruling on her GST pledge cited her Pour on Proposition 1b on 26 February 2026 as voting to impose GST. Proposition 1b chose between two versions of GST and did not decide whether GST should be introduced (see the 5 October correction), so that vote is no longer relied on. The ruling now rests on her Pour on the final Tax Reform proposition on 2 October 2026 and her Contre on Amendment 1. The verdict itself is unchanged, and whether a pledge conditional on trust, reform and a credible plan can be scored from votes at all remains under review. Second, her Contre vote on the 29 January 2026 Government Work Plan amendment was on a particular six-monthly reporting format, and she told the Assembly she was not opposed to transparency. It had already been rated ambiguous and did not count, but the page still described it as voting against delivering her transparency pledge. It is now context only, and that description is removed. Third, her Contre vote on 16 July 2025 was on raising the threshold for holding a by-election from one vacancy to three, not on Island-Wide Voting reform, and is now context only. Separately, the promise cards now show any vote that was set aside as not clearly a breach with a neutral mark and "not counted as a breach", instead of a red cross. Her statement that she voted against a GST rise to 4% and 5% (Proposition 1A) is not yet reflected: the voting records show her voting Pour on Amendment 55 on 1 October 2026, which inserted that proposition, and record no division on Proposition 1A itself, so it is not reflected until the vote she means is identified.

The text under the Proposition 1b votes that no longer count still said they did. It has been replaced. No verdict changed.

When Proposition 1b of 26 February 2026 was made context-only on GST promises, the vote was moved out of the verdict and given an editorial note, but the machine-written text beside it was left as it was. Sixteen deputy pages therefore still described the motion, under the note, as approving or introducing GST (in several cases as directly contrary to the promise), and four of them (Gabriel, Collins, Falla and Williams) still carried a stored explanation of why the vote counted against the promise. Proposition 1b was one of two alternative designs for GST (the other was Proposition 1c), to apply if the States adopted the tax reform proposals. It did not decide whether GST should be introduced. All sixteen now carry a plain description of what it was, and the stored explanations are cleared. Relevance, pins and verdicts are unchanged.

Rulings published on the remaining conditional GST pledges: Forward Guernsey's "GST+ in its current form", Deputy Rylatt's fair-share pledge and Deputy Parkinson's two GST pledges are all broken.

The Forward Guernsey and Rylatt rulings were made on 4 October and held back on 5 October while the reader poll at /guernsey/gst/verdict opened; they are now shown again, each with its reasons. Deputy Parkinson's pledges were added from the printed manifesto book on 5 October and held back until his condition had been examined. His manifesto opposed GST "at this time" because Pillar Two receipts would be much greater than forecast, possibly more than the £71m deficit; on 30 September he told the Assembly that Pillar Two is now expected to raise £88m for 2025, £84m for 2026 and £79m for 2027, and on 2 October he voted for the GST package. His fair-share condition, as his manifesto defines it, was that the domestic economy be brought into tax; the Tax Reform 2026 policy letter keeps Zero-10. His pledges are now linked to Amendment 1 (26 February), the final Tax Reform proposition (2 October) and the 2026 Budget shareholder-loan change, which is shown as a step towards the condition. Each ruling sets out its reasons on the deputy's page.

His own conditional GST promise, held "broken" since 14 September, now reads "mixed" by editorial ruling.

His promise that business and high-net-worth individuals should "pay their fair share before a consumption tax (such as GST) is imposed on islanders" was ruled "broken" on 14 September and again on 4 October. The record points both ways, and the automated tally already read "mixed" (two votes consistent, three not). In November 2025 he voted for Budget motions to raise revenue from accumulated untaxed company profits, to widen the definition of distribution so that it catches asset transfers used to avoid tax, and to raise the Standard Charge from £40,000 to £50,000. Those are steps towards the condition he set. Against that, he voted against Amendments 14 and 19 in July 2026, which offered a route without GST, and on 2 October he voted for Proposition 1, which directs that the GST package be implemented, while the corporate tax regime was unchanged: the Tax Reform 2026 policy letter kept Zero-10 and did not pursue Zero-15. The ruling is now "mixed", with the reason published on his page and the automated tally still shown beside it. The 2 October vote stays recorded as a clear breach; no other link changed. Deputy Rylatt disputes the earlier reading of this promise, and his statement will be published alongside the verdict when it arrives.

The ruling on his GST+ pledge overstated what one amendment did. The verdict is unchanged.

The ruling described his vote for Amendment 3 (15 July 2026) as "a bare GST referendum stripping the protections out". The amendment deleted the propositions in the Tax Reform package and substituted a referendum on GST alone, asking "Do you support the introduction of a GST (goods and services tax)? Yes or No."; it did not mention the income tax or social security elements, which fell only because the whole package was deleted. The ruling now says that. His vote for Amendment 14 on 16 July, which said neither GST nor the associated income tax and social security reforms would be introduced, is the direct vote, and the verdict rests mainly on it.

The ruling on his GST pledge is now written up. It reads kept, as before.

His pledge, "only if we can boost the economy fairly can we avoid the worst of GST", has read kept since August with a note saying the review was pending. The review is finished and the ruling stands. The pledge is a forecast about the economy and not a promise about how he would vote, so his votes on GST do not test it either way. The ruling now says why on his page, and records that he voted against the phase-up to 5% (Amendment 55) and for the final package, which begins GST at 3%.

His 26 February vote against Amendment 1 no longer counts against his anti-GST promise. Verdict changed from mixed to kept.

On 5 October the scorecard kept his Contre vote on Amendment 1 of 26 February 2026 as a clear breach of his promise "GST - NO thank you!", because the amendment would have agreed that GST shall not be introduced and stopped all preparations for it. On further review that is not clear enough to count against him. In the chamber he said he would support "all the options on the table" until the final debate, and he went on to vote against the final Tax Reform 2026 proposition on 2 October, the vote that decided whether GST went ahead. Deputy Adrian Gabriel made the same promise and voted the same way on Amendment 1, and was already scored as not a clear breach, so this also removes a difference in how the two were treated. The vote is still shown on his page, marked as not counted as a breach. Twelve votes now count as consistent with the promise and none against, so the verdict moves from mixed to kept. This replaces the 5 October entry above, which kept the Amendment 1 vote against him.

The verdict on her GST pledge has changed from broken to mixed.

Her pledge says that trust and reform come first and that only then, with a credible government and a credible plan, should Islanders be asked to accept any new form of taxation. The scorecard ruled it broken on 14 September 2026 and kept that ruling on 6 October, when the reasoning was corrected. After meeting Deputy Hansmann Rouxel on 9 October we have reviewed it again and now rule it mixed. She voted Contre on Amendment 1 (26 February 2026), which would have rescinded GST, and Pour on Tax Reform Proposition 1 (2 October 2026), which directs that the GST package be implemented, and the reform her pledge names was not complete when she did. But the conditions in the pledge are matters of judgement, and her manifesto described GST+ as logically sound and set a sequence for introducing it rather than committing her to oppose it. A conditional pledge of that kind is not a categorical commitment to vote against GST. No votes were added, removed or re-graded: the vote record still reads eight consistent and none inconsistent, and the change is to the editorial ruling on the promise and the reason published beside it.

Her vote against Proposition 1A, which raised GST to 4% and then 5%, is now on her record, after the States published the division.

The 6 October entry above said her statement that she voted against Proposition 1A was not yet reflected, because the States voting records showed no division on Proposition 1A itself. That was the position on the official record at the time: when it was checked on 6 October, four days after the vote, the page for the division existed but no votes had been recorded on it. The States have since published the result. Proposition 1A, inserted by Amendment 55, set GST to rise to 4% after 24 months and to 5% after 48 months. It carried 20 to 19 on 2 October 2026, and Deputy Hansmann Rouxel voted Contre, as she had said. The vote now appears on her page. The scorecard imports the States voting records each morning and can only show a division once the States have published it.

The verdict on his GST+ pledge has changed from broken to kept.

His pledge backs GST only in its mitigated form. He wrote that "the fairest means of raising revenue ... is through the now approved, progressive GST+ tax proposals", and that he "would not have supported the proposals without these significant, progressive mitigations", naming the lower income tax rate on the first £30,000, the social security allowance and protection for pensioners. On 2 October 2026 he voted Pour on Tax Reform 2026 Proposition 1, the final package, which kept those mitigations, so his support matched the condition he had set. The 7 October entry above rested the broken verdict mainly on his July votes for Amendment 3, a referendum on GST alone, and Amendment 14, which would have introduced neither GST nor the income tax and social security reforms. On review those were votes about the route and the shape of reform, not votes to impose GST without the mitigations. His own amendment, lodged in July with Deputy Sloan, which argued for a broader tax base with less redistribution while keeping protection for the lowest earners, did not become part of the package, and he then voted for the mitigated package. None of that contradicts a pledge to support GST provided the mitigations are in place, so the verdict is now kept. The change is to the editorial ruling and the reason published beside it. This replaces the 7 October entry above, which kept the verdict as broken.

An absence on a Bahrain tax agreement was counted against his promise to build partnerships with France, the UK and the Islands.

His promise to leverage Guernsey's position to build partnerships with France, the UK and the Islands was scored "no side taken" on a single division: the 3 September 2025 vote approving the Income Tax (Guernsey) (Approval of Agreement with Bahrain) Ordinance, 2025, which he missed. The link's own stored reasoning noted that the promise "specifically mentions France, UK and Channel Islands". Bahrain is none of those, so the division does not test this promise and an absence on it is not a fair measure of whether he delivered it. It was the only scored vote on the promise, and that one absence cost him the full no-side-taken penalty in the Overall ranking, which placed him eighteenth, below every deputy with a clean record. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. The promise now reads "no recorded vote". The same division is also linked to two promises of Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, on global finance and on influence on the world stage. Those links match the wording of his promises, so they stand.

An absence on an amendment about the Lieutenant-Governor's tax exemption was counted against his promise to explore a 0-15 corporate tax rate with Jersey.

His promise to explore a 0-15 corporate tax rate in collaboration with Jersey was scored "no side taken" on a single division: Amendment 9 on 2 October 2026, which he missed. The amendment directs the Policy & Resources Committee to consult the Lord Chancellor, the Ministry of Justice and the Jersey and Isle of Man governments so the States can approve repeal of the income tax exemption held by the Lieutenant-Governor. Jersey appears only as a consultee on that repeal, and corporate tax is not mentioned. The link's stored reasoning described it as a collaborative approach to corporate tax, which it is not. It was the only scored vote on the promise, and that one absence cost him the full no-side-taken penalty in the Overall ranking. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. The promise now reads "no recorded vote".

An absence on an Open Market register amendment was counted against his housing promise on developers' red tape and affordable apartments.

His housing promise (less red tape for developers, affordable apartment buildings, support for the Guernsey Housing Association) was scored "no side taken" on a single division: the 22 October 2025 amendment to the Open Market Housing Register commencement ordinance, which he missed. The amendment would let an owner of an Open Market Part A property swap its inscription for another in order to downsize, even without owning both at once. It concerns who may move inscriptions on that register, not developers' red tape, affordable apartments or the Housing Association. The link's stored reasoning also read the amendment backwards, saying it would have restricted housing transactions when it loosens a restriction. The same division was already ruled two-sided for another deputy's promise in the 3 August audit. It was the only scored vote on this promise, and that one absence cost him the full no-side-taken penalty in the Overall ranking. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. The promise now reads "no recorded vote".

An absence on an equity release lending ordinance was counted against her promise to link older residents with keyworkers who need a room.

Her promise to find solutions such as linking older residents with vetted keyworkers who need a room was scored "no side taken" on a single division: the 22 April 2026 vote approving the Lending, Credit and Finance (Equity Release Mortgages) (Guernsey) Ordinance, 2026, which she missed. The ordinance sets a regulatory regime for equity release lenders. Nothing in it matches residents to rooms or touches home-sharing, so the division does not test a pledge of that kind. The link's stored reasoning reached it through the word "downsize" in the promise summary, which is not in her quoted text. It was the only scored vote on the promise, and that one absence cost her the full no-side-taken penalty in the Overall ranking. Downgraded to low relevance (shown for context, not counted) and pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse it. The promise now reads "no recorded vote". Her separate tax promise, which reads "abstained", is not affected by this change.

A sitting missed through illness was counted as ten absences, and her second committee vice-presidency was missing.

She was too unwell to attend the sitting of 25 September 2025. The Official Report for that day records Deputy St Pier telling the Assembly she "is of course indisposée today, she is really quite unwell and has been for a number of days so is unable to attend", and Deputy de Sausmarez that she "would have moved heaven and earth to be here but she is really too unwell"; she was elected to the Policy & Resources Committee in absentia that afternoon, which is why the motion to vary Rule 16(5) was moved. Ten divisions were held, so that one missed sitting counted as ten separate absences against her attendance rate. All ten are now excused, dropping them from her attendance sample without altering the underlying voting record, the same mechanism used for her 7 August correction and for Deputies Leadbeater, Sloan and Curgenven. This was found by reading the Official Report, not raised by her. Two further errors were corrected at the same time: her profile listed only her Policy & Resources vice-presidency, where parliament.gg gives her as Vice-President of the States' Assembly & Constitution Committee as well, now added; and her Development & Planning Authority attendance was labelled "Full term to 19 August 2026" against six meetings, when she was president of the Authority only from July to September 2025, now labelled for the period she actually served. Her remaining absences are unchanged and stand: five divisions on 20 May 2026, one on 24 June 2026 and one on 2 October 2026, each on a day she attended and spoke in the chamber.

Two of his procurement promises moved from outstanding to in progress after he challenged the rulings, pending links from him.

His promise to push for a higher weighting for local suppliers and streamlined low-value tenders, and his promise to overhaul procurement to favour local firms, both read "outstanding": the verdict run found no proposition, policy letter or amendment from him on either. He challenged both on 22 October 2026, citing the Guernsey Press report of 16 June 2025 on the States awarding its stationery contract to Amazon Business over two local firms. That article predates his time in office and shows him raising the issue as a candidate. He also says he met the head of procurement, challenged the figures and engaged local suppliers, and that in October 2026 he arranged a meeting between a local supplier and senior States leaders. We found no public record of those meetings. Both verdicts are now "in progress", with his account shown beside each as his response and a note that we are awaiting links from him; the rulings will be reviewed when they arrive. The 2020 Procurement Policy remains in force and nothing on streamlining low-value tenders has been found, so neither promise is marked delivered. His third procurement promise, to radically change government procurement, was not challenged and still reads "outstanding". These are delivery verdicts on promises with no recorded vote, so no score or ranking changes.

The GST verdicts case file left out his votes from 30 September to 2 October, including those against Amendment 55 and Proposition 1A.

The case file on his GST pledge in "Did we call it right on the GST promise breakers?" described a single vote to stop GST+ (Amendment 14 on 16 July) and a vote to pass the package on 2 October. The voting records hold more. On 30 September he voted for a sursis that would have returned the package without GST (lost 16 to 24), for Amendment 45, which would have held GST back pending a report (lost 18 to 21), and for Amendments 33 and 48, which would have put income tax at 22% instead (each lost 5 to 33). He voted against Amendment 54, which would have deferred GST, and against Amendment 57, the referendum. On 1 October he voted against Amendment 55, which phased GST in at 3%, then 4%, then 5% (carried 21 to 16). On 2 October he voted for Proposition 1, the package as amended (carried 22 to 17), and against Proposition 1A, which wrote the phased rise into the package (carried 20 to 19). The case file now sets out all of these votes, and its headline and verdict line no longer say there was one vote to stop GST+. The reasoning for Mixed now rests on his 2 October vote for Proposition 1, the one vote our scorer marks as a clear act against the pledge, and no longer cites his February votes, which the scorer does not count as breaches. The verdict itself is unchanged.

Fiscal and public-spending pledges from the 2025 manifestos were added, and the vote that set 2027 spending was matched to every pledge of the same kind.

We read each sitting deputy's 2025 manifesto again for what it promised on public spending, the deficit, tax levels, efficiency, borrowing and reserves, and added 27 pledges for 16 deputies that the scorecard had not yet recorded. Each is quoted word for word from the deputy's election2025.gg page or the official combined manifesto book. They were then tested against the recorded votes, including the 2027 Budget debate of 3 to 6 November 2026. Proposition 17 of that Budget approved Option B, £716.1m of committee spending for 2027, £15.7m above Option A, and replaced the 1% real-terms efficiency target with a £20m-a-year savings programme. The automated matching had tied it to Deputy Camp's pledge to make government live within its means but not to the pledges of Deputies Burford, Helyar and Blin to the same effect, so the same vote would have tested one pledge and not the others. It now bears on all four at medium weight. A deputy can support Option B while still pursuing restraint, because it also carries a savings programme, so a vote for it counts against such a pledge only if our breach review finds it a clear contradiction. It is shown for context, not counted, on the "balance the books" pledges of Deputies Niles and Hansmann Rouxel, because balance can come from revenue as well as spending. Amendment 23, which would have deleted Proposition 17, put the same question earlier in the debate and is shown for context only, so the vote is not counted twice. On three pledges to raise more revenue (Deputies Dorrity, Hansmann Rouxel and Burford), Proposition 1b of 26 February 2026 is now shown for context, not counted: it chose between two designs of GST, both of which raise revenue, the same ruling made for other GST pledges on 5 October. All of these links are pinned so a future re-matching cannot reverse them. Every new verdict goes through review by the advisory council and the deputy before it appears; until then these pledges read "no recorded vote".

The 2027 Budget vote that would have kept the 1% spending cut was not matched to the Forward Guernsey 1% pledge, and the vote record did not say what was being deleted.

We checked every sitting deputy's votes in the 2027 Budget debate of 3 to 6 November 2026 against their manifesto promises. Five live pledges, held by Deputies Rylatt (two), Humphreys and St Pier (two), promise "a 1% reduction in baseline public spending each year" and had no link to any November vote. Amendment 23 (4 November, lost 10 to 26) would have deleted Proposition 17, which approved Option B, £716.1m of committee spending for 2027, £15.7m above Option A. The Budget policy letter (P.2026/82, paragraphs 6.7 to 6.17) says Option A is built on the existing resolution "including delivery of the 1% savings target" and that Option B replaces Resolution 10 of Billet d'État No II, 2026 with a £20m-a-year savings programme. All three deputies voted against deleting Proposition 17, so Option B stayed in. Amendment 23 is now linked to all five pledges at medium weight, where voting to delete is the vote that keeps the 1% cut. Its stored text read only "To delete Proposition 17.", which led our breach review to rate the first links ambiguous because it could not tell what was being deleted. The record now carries the content of Proposition 17 and the policy letter paragraphs above, and the review rates all five votes as clear. On three pledges (Rylatt's party pledge, Humphreys, and St Pier's party pledge) that moves the computed verdict from Kept to Mixed. Those proposed changes are held for the advisory council and the deputy's right of reply and do not appear until they have been through review. Two pledges, Rylatt's personal pledge and St Pier's personal pledge, carry an editorial Kept decision of 20 August 2026 made when the only adverse vote was a softer July amendment. Their computed verdict is now Mixed but the published Kept stands until that decision is revisited. All three deputies abstained on Proposition 17 itself, and abstentions are not counted. Matthews, Burford and Vermeulen already carried a link to Proposition 17 and are unchanged.