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.