These 68 items trace claims and links in the records. Some show documented actions; others remain questions. Use the labels and sources to see how much evidence supports each one.
New to this topic? Start with a short map of selected Utah parent-network records.
Search the questions, source notes or item IDs. Choose a label to narrow the list.
Several attributed accounts describe the same contact. They do not verify every search or unnamed participant, or establish the origin of later ratings.
Based on: Campaign accounts describe Colorado’s role in Utah complaints (2017–2021; 2019 deck): Peck account, coalition strategy, Thomas More statement
The sender and article are unidentified. Peck’s mention of a senator does not identify her as this email’s sender.
Based on: Utah restricts EBSCO and tests the complaints (March 2017; September–October 2018): UETN account
Accounts disagree on when access first stopped. Public and academic access were separate, and restoration records include both drafts and approvals.
Based on: Utah restricts EBSCO and tests the complaints (March 2017; September–October 2018): board records
One identified article was removed. The tests used specific terms and settings; they do not settle every complaint or future risk.
Based on: Utah monitoring challenges campaign accounts (October 2018–February 2022): October 12 testing update
Professional response and vendor denial are separate evidence types, both central context
Based on: Utah monitoring challenges campaign accounts (October 2018–February 2022): UELMA/ULA statements and counsel letter
Official restoration and monitoring records contradict that access claim. It was already out of date.
Based on: Utah monitoring challenges campaign accounts (October 2018–February 2022): reply versus October 2018 restoration/monitoring
The record includes opposition and a failed bill referral. It does not support a general claim about all Colorado law.
Based on: Colorado parents sue EBSCO (2016–2019): hearing/bill history
The law and committee actions have separate records. Campaign credit does not identify everyone who wrote the legislation.
Based on: Campaign accounts describe Colorado’s role in Utah complaints (2017–2021; 2019 deck)/Utah passes digital-provider safeguards (September 2020–May 2021): Peck article; bill/committee records
The coalition reappears later, but no specific transfer of data or organization is established. Communications or a direct account of that transition are still needed.
Based on: Campaign accounts describe Colorado’s role in Utah complaints (2017–2021; 2019 deck)/A Utah working list draws titles from outside groups (October–November 2021; later March 2022 reporting)/Speakers and group pages describe Stephens’s roles (November 2022; April 2024; September 2026 views)
These are source labels, including PCHC, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Goodreads and No Left Turn. They do not show that every row was reviewed or copied exactly.
Based on: A Utah working list draws titles from outside groups (October–November 2021; later March 2022 reporting)/Stephens describes copying and expanding Mary pages (November 22–30, 2021; July 5, 2023 account): sheet `1DfZ9tnTsR82iR1K0VMIZOojJTmgvPpvy7sdRDWTnkhA`
Separate videos and news reports support the organizing account. They do not identify every list author or resulting challenge.
Based on: A Utah working list draws titles from outside groups (October–November 2021; later March 2022 reporting): November 2021 tutorials; independent contemporaneous reporting
The block of titles supports part of the account’s context. It does not confirm every detail or establish common ownership or control.
Based on: Stephens describes copying and expanding Mary pages (November 22–30, 2021; July 5, 2023 account): July 5, 2023 interview
Shared details support limited continuity. A complete version history, row-by-row match and the original list’s author are still missing.
Based on: Working-list links reappear in RatedBooks files (November 2021–May 2022; March 2026 snapshot): shared source links, dated sheets, archives, contact continuity
Some cells were blank before dates were added. The Date Added field alone cannot date an import.
Based on: Working-list links reappear in RatedBooks files (November 2021–May 2022; March 2026 snapshot): 2022 legislative snapshot versus current sheet
Hosting/Drive owner is not policy author, organizational owner or government adoption
Based on: Working-list links reappear in RatedBooks files (November 2021–May 2022; March 2026 snapshot): May 2022 model/Drive details
Public links and contact details match. That does not establish a shared home address, sole control or one legal entity.
Based on: Working-list links reappear in RatedBooks files (November 2021–May 2022; March 2026 snapshot): November 2021/September 2022 archives; March 2026 extract/filing email
Statements and reporting agree, but some may repeat the same announcement. Exact file versions and earlier transfers need original records.
Based on: BookLooks transfers its reports to RatedBooks (2024–March 2025; later archive status): shutdown statement, Stephens public post, reporting
The saved inputs reproduce 566 matching normalized URL names out of 1,220 cleaned RatedBooks names (46.4%). These are URL names, not a count of copied reports. Normalization can combine different works, and the cleaning rules exclude some real titles. First archive capture is not publication date.
Based on: Report transfer and verification (July–August 2026 analysis dates): sealed inputs/scripts/results and correction index · Inspect the inputs, calculation and limits
Different sites can list the same title. Establishing copied reports requires text and version comparisons or explicit source credits.
Based on: Report transfer and verification (July–August 2026 analysis dates); Q18
The full list and cleaned URL set count different things. The unresolved 1,209 figure cannot replace 1,103.
Based on: BookLooks transfers its reports to RatedBooks (2024–March 2025; later archive status)/Report transfer and verification (July–August 2026 analysis dates): master-sheet labels; linked lineage index
The guides show instructions. Filed forms are needed to establish whether particular challenges used them or led to removal.
Based on: Stephens shows parents how to find books in schools (April 2022–September 2026)/Guides pair ratings with book-challenge steps (2022–2026; March 2025 tutorial): tutorials/maps/guide
The nearby UPU record does not identify the AI guide’s author. The two records have separate origins.
Based on: Guides pair ratings with book-challenge steps (2022–2026; March 2025 tutorial): homepage saved image and claim audit
Hosting/presentation not endorsement or statutory incorporation of ratings
Based on: RatedBooks enters a legislative hearing (October 19, 2022; later toolkit view August 2026): `le.utah.gov/interim/2022/pdf/00004086.pdf`
Minutes establish assistance/presentation in specific roles; drafting responsibility requires different records
Based on: Utah adopts book-review rules and HB374 (February–October 2022; later rule versions through 2026)/RatedBooks enters a legislative hearing (October 19, 2022; later toolkit view August 2026)/Local findings trigger statewide book removal (January–August 2024; saved workbook July 6, 2026): committee minutes
Statute versus rule versus local policy; do not apply later versions retroactively
Based on: Utah adopts book-review rules and HB374 (February–October 2022; later rule versions through 2026)/Local findings trigger statewide book removal (January–August 2024; saved workbook July 6, 2026): minutes, enrolled law, dated drafts
Appeal changed age/value judgment; initial filing did not immediately remove; predates HB29
Based on: Davis restricts the Bible, then restores it on appeal (December 11, 2022–June 20, 2023): exhibit/policy/minutes/recordings
Consent clip alone insufficient for title/rationale; book removal versus instructional approval distinct
Based on: Davis appeals change some early book decisions (March 2023–March 2024)/Later Davis appeals recommend book removals (February–July 2026): exhibit/minutes/recording pairs
Drama was kept; Twisted and The Hate U Give went to further review. The March vote did not remove all three.
Based on: Davis delays appeals and orders further review (January–March 2025): approved minutes and recordings
Counsel assessed procedure, not the book’s merits. Her advice is distinct from the final Board vote.
Based on: The State Board rejects a Fight Club do-over (April 7–September 3, 2026; May 29 reporting notation): September 3 full-recording links/excerpts
The final motion failed, 7 in favor and 8 opposed. The Board ordered no do-over and adopted no finding. The failed vote does not establish that Davis followed its policy.
Based on: The State Board rejects a Fight Club do-over (April 7–September 3, 2026; May 29 reporting notation)/Appeals, delays and corrections change the record (2023–2026) · Final motion, vote and recording
A reporting field is not an intake log. Submission, State Board receipt and contribution to the statewide count are separate facts.
Based on: State records separate local decisions from reporting (2022–2026; older decisions versus post-July 2024 system): district workflow; internal reporting check
Sequence established, original handoff records missing. Does not imply non-reporting or invalidity
Based on: State records separate local decisions from reporting (2022–2026; older decisions versus post-July 2024 system): older-outcome/statewide records; local check
The count requires final objective findings from three districts, or two districts plus five charters. Subjective findings do not automatically count. Notice and State Board review remain separate steps.
Based on: Local findings trigger statewide book removal (January–August 2024; saved workbook July 6, 2026): enrolled HB29/§53G-10-103(7)
Threshold dates and snapshot version documented; original running counts/receipts needed
Based on: Local findings trigger statewide book removal (January–August 2024; saved workbook July 6, 2026): saved workbook/exhibit
The records used here lack versioned submissions and correction or withdrawal logs under the applicable rule. The earlier Bible appeal does not show that this later process occurred.
Based on: Appeals, delays and corrections change the record (2023–2026)/State records separate local decisions from reporting (2022–2026; older decisions versus post-July 2024 system)
Supplier remains unidentified. No basis to name Ivory/Stephens as supplier by adjacency
Based on: Auditors choose 22 books from 186 candidates (October 14, 2025 report): report 2025-28 p.14
The report says 21 of the 22 contained sexual conduct as defined by Utah Code. This was a review of the selected books, not all 186 candidates or an adoption of the private numerical ratings.
Based on: Lawmakers order a follow-up school-book audit (June 18, 2025)/Auditors choose 22 books from 186 candidates (October 14, 2025 report): follow-up scope/report
Product legal flags do not establish this audit-to-product handoff; require input manifest/version
Based on: Auditors choose 22 books from 186 candidates (October 14, 2025 report)/RatedBooks launches BookLens and NBRI (October 2025–September 2026)
A direct citation shows use of the audit. It does not explain every later proposal or conclusion about librarians and vendors.
Based on: Green’s purchase questions lead to a library review plan (April 2024–July 2026): plan, motions, discussion
Sending a draft does not make someone its sole author. Keep each role and the final adopted version separate.
Based on: The State Board adopts a review plan and addendum (August 4–September 2026): native EML/Word versions/packet
The survey question is documented. That record contains no service contract or requirement. Responses and funding decisions are separate steps.
Based on: The State Board adopts a review plan and addendum (August 4–September 2026): blank-response/source-example row
Roles differ by organization. An in-care contact receives mail; that does not establish authority. An officer listing does not give a current ownership share.
Based on: Filings record Stephens’s nonprofit and advocacy roles (2016–2026; dated role changes)/S&S Apps develops learning and rating products (2016–2026; formations 2018/2020/2021): redacted public filings, IRS field explanation
Affiliation and aggregate grants documented; recipient/purpose unknown. No financial flow established
Based on: Filings record Stephens’s nonprofit and advocacy roles (2016–2026; dated role changes): affiliate claim; return with unnamed grant recipients
Presentations and listings show associations. Records establishing a particular ownership, governing or directing role are still missing here.
Based on: Speakers and group pages describe Stephens’s roles (November 2022; April 2024; September 2026 views)/Campaign accounts describe Colorado’s role in Utah complaints (2017–2021; 2019 deck)/S&S Apps develops learning and rating products (2016–2026; formations 2018/2020/2021)
Explicit public workflow; no centralized direction or every actual transfer inferred
Based on: Wallace describes sharing titles and challenge guidance (July–September 2026 source/view dates): Rating Teams; guide; Wallace recording
The company and products are separate. A shared operator does not establish shared data, customers or a development sequence.
Based on: S&S Apps develops learning and rating products (2016–2026; formations 2018/2020/2021)/Amplify adds tools for contacting school officials (October 2022–August 2026; January 10, 2024 post)/RatedBooks launches BookLens and NBRI (October 2025–September 2026): filings/trademark/company pages/interview
The post names the group, not its writer. It concerns R277-328, separate from R277-628. Message totals and policy effects remain unverified.
Based on: Amplify adds tools for contacting school officials (October 2022–August 2026; January 10, 2024 post): dated post exhibit
Checking accuracy, completeness, editions and actual performance requires tests and data records beyond demonstrations and offers.
Based on: RatedBooks launches BookLens and NBRI (October 2025–September 2026)/Paid services offer book-list checks and catalog links (December 2025–September 2026): demos/pages
Scoring differs; author unknown. Interoperability/similarity not governance
Based on: RatedBooks launches BookLens and NBRI (October 2025–September 2026): archived sites/code comparison claim
Offer directly documented; contradictory footer/subscription and changing tiers matter; contracts/logs needed
Based on: Paid services offer book-list checks and catalog links (December 2025–September 2026): pricing/product pages
Named institutional corroboration unavailable. This is not a confirmed customer list.
Based on: Paid services offer book-list checks and catalog links (December 2025–September 2026): June 30/July 1 interview
The policy was adopted; the testimonial gives a named person’s transfer account. No district contract or confirming district record was located, and the policy names no vendor.
Based on: A district-policy comparison still lacks linked originals (2025–August 2026): policy/minutes; vendor-published testimonial; five-district check
The policy names the service. That does not establish a paid purchase, installation or every book outcome. The historical vote needs its minutes.
Based on: South Carolina library policies name rating services (August 2024–March 2026 recordings; December 2025–February 2026 policies): policy text
Attributed reporting strongly supports catalog access. The supervisor rejected parent administrator access and rating uploads. Original logs and the final complaint outcome remain needed.
Based on: Davis confirms volunteer catalog work, not rating uploads (February–June 2026): reporting, supervisor response, district denial
The listings are documented. Four checks did not confirm use within their stated scope, and some policies were missing. West Ada’s source names BookLooks. This cannot establish use or non-use everywhere.
Based on: Stephens shows parents how to find books in schools (April 2022–September 2026)/Report transfer and verification (July–August 2026 analysis dates)/Records trace list sources and reported uses (November 2021; July–August 2026 checks): links/listings and five-district check
The privacy certification is documented separately from the state rejection and Board action. A later curriculum approval remains unverified.
Based on: HEART’s approval claim and the state’s rejection (2019–2026; August/September 2022 review)/S&S Apps develops learning and rating products (2016–2026; formations 2018/2020/2021): certification and state report
The curricula and editions differ. Approval claims in marketing do not change a review result; any later approval needs a source.
Based on: HEART’s approval claim and the state’s rejection (2019–2026; August/September 2022 review): report pp.22–23 and Board action
The record includes librarian opposition. Supporting a bill does not establish authorship, and not every proposal passed.
Based on: Stephens testifies on school and app bills (2024–2026): committee minutes; failed HB197 entry
The report says 44 of 85 apps with the relevant data privacy agreements (52%) collected at least one data element their agreements did not allow. That is a specific finding, not an overall noncompliance rate for all 100 selected apps. The source of the talk’s 97% figure remains unconfirmed.
Based on: G-Rated School presents its device and privacy claims (September 10, 2026; stated 2027 intentions): talk/report · Preserved Utah study (PDF, p. 30)
National 13-year-old NAEP series not Utah series; no causal identification established
Based on: G-Rated School presents its device and privacy claims (September 10, 2026; stated 2027 intentions): talk/charts
The trustee cited rating sites. That does not show they automatically decided purchases or removals. Staff also discussed donations, labels and shelving.
Based on: Idaho trustees debate purchases and mature-content access (June–September 2026): August 20 recording
No court finding of defamation or new library authority is recorded here. Counsel’s limits on the ruling matter to this account.
Based on: Idaho counsel explains a court ruling’s limits (August–September 2026): August/September recordings
The records used here do not identify particular drafts, motions or bills for the authorship claims. Repeated visit counts remain self-reported.
Based on: Wallace describes advocacy; officials credit legislative work (2022 toolkit; April–August 2026 recordings): August 19 press conference
The recording shows a statement and tool use, not a legal finding. Age suitability differs from obscenity, and district outcomes still need records.
Based on: Baggett demonstrates book-review and lookup tools (2023–2026): videos/BookLens demo
The note records an exclusion. It does not establish source content or Maryland’s participation; the original documents are absent from this record set.
Based on: State matrix; import review
Several cuts from one recording are still one source. Some carry uncertain names or corrected labels.
Based on: Recordings preserve claims made at meetings and interviews (2022–2026 recorded/upload dates): manifests/media source links
The attachment exists. A vote or purchase needs decision and buying records. Teaching illustrations do not show actions actually performed.
Based on: A guide shows how to find public meeting records (September 2026 agenda; tutorial context includes 2023 notes/2024 webinar): BoardBook guide
The records do not establish an exchange, purpose or control. Identity and year gaps remain open; a policy-influence link needs evidence of a transaction.
Based on: Dated filings record donations and public roles (2024–2026; uncertain/future dates labeled)/Filings record Stephens’s nonprofit and advocacy roles (2016–2026; dated role changes): dated finance/role records