How the Sep 6, 2026 review of Carmen Perez went
An AI review agent read the finished page and checked it. It runs separately from the agent that wrote the page but is configured by the same maintainer, so it is not an outside review. Every finding it raised is listed below with what happened to it.
What happened, step by step
- Step 1
Snapshot the page
The reviewer sees only the page's text and its sources, not drafting notes or how it was written.
Which version of the page was reviewed: not recorded.
- Step 2
Checks, each run separately
- Bias 2 findings
- Tone 2 findings
Which checks ran was not recorded, so a check with no findings is not listed.
- Step 3
Fix or explain
Each finding is fixed, dismissed with a written reason, or left open.
- Fixed3
- Open1
- Result
Findings open
The page stays live with its badge showing an open finding. It is reviewed again once the open item is addressed.
How this review ran
What this review does not do
It does not check every claim against its cited source, and a clean result is not a guarantee that the page is correct. Readers can report a problem on any page.
Report a problem on the pageAll 4 findings
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Open · 1
- Needs researchBias · medium
“the account of the Women's March organization's 2018-2019 leadership controversy and the co-chairs' 2019 departure from its board. That last item concerns living people and allegations, and is not restated without a source that was read.”
Why it was flagged
The file explicitly acknowledges omitting the well-documented 2018-2019 antisemitism/leadership controversy involving Perez and other Women's March co-chairs, while retaining extensive favorable material. Even with a stated sourcing rationale, the net effect is a one-sided profile that omits a major, widely reported episode.
Why it is still open
The omission is already deliberate and documented in the page's own 'What Is Not Established Here' section, which explains it was withheld pending a source that was actually read (the concern involves living people and allegations). Adding the controversy responsibly would require reading primary contemporaneous reporting on the 2018-2019 Women's March leadership dispute and co-chairs' 2019 board departures before writing sourced text; that research was not performed in this pass, so the existing cautious omission stands rather than inventing unsourced text.
Fixed · 3
- FixedBias · low
Before “The scale of that day is one of the few protest figures on this site with a rigorous source behind it.”
After “The Crowd Counting Consortium — now a Harvard Kennedy School programme — exists because of it: it emerged from Jeremy Pressman's and Erica Chenoweth's effort to estimate participation in the march and its sister events, and its data established that 21 January 2017 was the largest single-day demonstration in US history to that point.”
Why it was flagged
This editorializing aside singles out the Women's March for having unusually rigorous sourcing and implicitly elevates its legitimacy/significance compared to other protests, which reads as an evaluative endorsement rather than neutral factual description.
What was done
Removed the self-referential meta-commentary sentence about the site's own sourcing quality; kept the factual content about the Crowd Counting Consortium's origin and findings.
- FixedTone · medium
Before “The scale of that day is one of the few protest figures on this site with a rigorous source behind it.”
After “The Crowd Counting Consortium — now a Harvard Kennedy School programme — exists because of it: it emerged from Jeremy Pressman's and Erica Chenoweth's effort to estimate participation in the march and its sister events, and its data established that 21 January 2017 was the largest single-day demonstration in US history to that point.”
Why it was flagged
Meta-commentary about the site's own sourcing quality rather than a factual statement about the subject, using the evaluative term 'rigorous' as a value judgment rather than describing the evidence itself.
What was done
Removed the meta-commentary sentence; the surrounding factual claims about the Crowd Counting Consortium remain, sourced to the Ash Center page.
- FixedTone · low
Before “Was a co-chair of a mobilization that is the benchmark against which subsequent US single-day protests are measured, because researchers built a standing counting infrastructure in order to measure it”
After “Was a co-chair of the mobilization that researchers established as the largest single-day demonstration in US history to that point, which led to the creation of a standing counting infrastructure (the Crowd Counting Consortium) to measure it”
Why it was flagged
Calling the march 'the benchmark against which subsequent US single-day protests are measured' amplifies beyond the documented fact (largest single-day demonstration to that point, prompting a standing counting effort).
What was done
Reworded to state only the documented facts (largest single-day demonstration to that point; led to creation of the Crowd Counting Consortium) without the 'benchmark' characterization.