Legal intimidation
Score effect: Trust index down; accountability-avoidance up
threat letters, abusive defamation claims, SLAPP-style pressure
Principle
PASO does not need to argue emotionally with attackers. It records conduct. If an actor uses threats, takedown pressure, smear campaigns or refusal to provide public records, that behavior becomes a public accountability signal.
Correction paradox
Any criticized actor can correct the record by submitting public primary sources, contracts, budgets, court records, official replies or audited data. Rhetorical denial without source disclosure remains a visible uncertainty marker.
Information pressure
Score effect: Information/psychological pressure up
smear campaigns, bot waves, coordinated narrative attacks
Evidence obstruction
Score effect: Evidence-integrity risk up
refusal to release contracts, deleted documents, unexplained redactions
Platform pressure
Score effect: Public-interest suppression flag
domain complaint, takedown demand, hosting pressure
Contributor intimidation
Score effect: Protection-risk escalation
threats, surveillance, arrests, harassment, doxxing
Public retaliation event template
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Actor: [state / company / official / media / unknown]
Target: [PASO / journalist / contributor / community / lawyer]
Type: [legal intimidation / information pressure / evidence obstruction / platform pressure / contributor intimidation]
Public evidence URL: [link]
Description: [short factual description]
PASO classification: [not a final finding; public-risk signal]
Requested correction/right of reply: [yes/no/link]