open_records.law**UnGovr serve data, not models.** By that definition they do not belong here. Written as though they were a model vendor, the nine sections would answer the wrong questions well. **The resolution, and it makes the contract better rather than weaker.** The family's real question was never *which model service is this*. It is: **where does the credential live, and what bounds it?** UnGovr answer that question — and answer it in a way no model provider in this family can, because for most of their surface **the answer is that there is no credential**. Pattern 0 is not a hazard here; it is the intended mode, and it is the first row in this matrix where `pattern 0` is not a warning. {{claim:api-key-free}} **So UnGovr is this family's first open-data provider, and the extension is deliberate.** It is [filed as a correction against the hub's contract](/briefs/) rather than as an edit to it, per the house rule — and per the contract's own closing rule, that if admitting a legitimate new member requires template surgery, the fix belongs in the contract. {{comparison}} **Note the three products are bounded by three different things**, which is exactly why this section is per product and never per vendor: the open surface by an IP budget, the gated surface by a free key's daily cap, and the payment path by a wallet balance. ## 4 · Where the key goes **For most of this API: nowhere. There is no key.** That is the honest answer for entities, boundaries, records laws and the CGJ indices, and it is the reason this provider is worth adding to the comparison. For the two gated corpora — AI-laws, and CGJ report *detail* — the API advertises **two different mechanisms in the same 401 response**: {{claim:ai-laws-gated}} ``` HTTP/2 401 www-authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata="https://data.ungovr.org/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource", scope="opendata:read" {"error":"API key required. Include X-API-Key header.", "register":"https://www.ungovr.org/open-data/api-keys"} ``` The body says `X-API-Key`. The header offers OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata — the discovery document an MCP client follows. **Product: Open Data API, AI-laws endpoints. Read at `https://data.ungovr.org/v1/ai-laws/index.json` on 9 September 2026.** **Only one of the two works, and we have now run both.** The same valid key returns `200` as `X-API-Key` and `401` as `Authorization: Bearer` — byte-identical to the anonymous refusal. {{claim:authorization-ignored}} Their key page says so plainly: *"The Open Data API does not read `Authorization`, so a bearer token is ignored and the request is answered as an anonymous one."* The 401's own header does not say so, and a client that trusts the header over the docs fails open into anonymity.“Provider” here means one thing only: a service that serves models over an API — the sense this estate's own code uses, where a constant of that name holds an entry per model service.
elevenlabs.providers.sgit.ai § What this site is, and is not, read 9 September 2026
**Where it goes in our estate**, if we ever hold one: owner-sealed under the vault's write key, never in this repository. The key-shape scan in `tools/secret-scan.sh` runs over the whole tree including the built output, and it deliberately does **not** match `sgit_private_read_…`, because a read key is publishable and is how this estate shares a vault — the same way `sgit.ai/llms.txt` does. [The vault page](/vault/) carries one. ## 5 · The bounding primitive **What caps the blast radius here is not a property of a key. It is a property of the network path, and then a payment protocol.** {{claim:rate-limits}} | Resource | Free tier | Bounded by | |---|---|---| | Entity data | **100/day per IP** | your IP address | | CGJ indices and county listings | **unlimited** | nothing | | CGJ report detail | 50/day per key | the key | | Conditional revalidation (`304`) | free, 5,000/day per key | the key, then `429` + `Retry-After` | Past the free tier the API answers **HTTP 402 with a Machine Payments Protocol challenge**, payable per request from a Stripe-funded wallet: $0.001 per entity request, $0.01 per report, $5.00 minimum top-up. {{claim:machine-payments}} **And what it does not cap.** Nothing scopes a *wallet*. The rate limit protects UnGovr from a client; the wallet balance is the only thing protecting a client from itself, and a runaway agent with a funded wallet has no per-key spend ceiling documented anywhere. That is the same finding this family recorded against a model vendor's per-key quota, arrived at from the opposite direction. **One practical gap.** `X-RateLimit-Remaining` and `X-Quota-Remaining` are advertised in the API's CORS `Access-Control-Expose-Headers`, but were not emitted on any of the 70 responses taken here — so a client cannot see how much budget is left until it is gone. {{claim:no-ratelimit-headers}} **And one design choice worth knowing before you plan around it.** Several keys on one account **share a single daily allowance**: *"connecting a second client does not buy a second free tier."* {{claim:shared-quota}} So a key here is a **revocation handle, not a budget** — issuing one per machine limits what you have to rotate when one leaks, without raising throughput. That is the right trade, and it is the opposite of the assumption most per-key quota systems train you into. ## 6 · The minimal working example **As files, not snippets** — and these are not illustrations. **They are the scripts that produced every number on this site.** {{claim:examples-run}} {{examples}} The discipline they encode: write the raw response bytes to disk unmodified, hash *those* bytes, and log before parsing anything. A node that cannot name the bytes it came from is an assertion, not a retrieval. [Every row of the log is published](/retrievals/), including the failures. ## 7 · What we use it for **The government-graph vault** — one county, one law, one acceptance, and a refusal to widen it. {{claim:vault-viewer-mvp}} The named workload is a seven-step join: **entity → instrument → provision → obligation → control → evidence → acceptance**, for Santa Barbara County and the California Public Records Act. [The whole join is on one page](/join/), with the provenance of every node and the state of every claim. The one thing worth knowing before you read it: **only one edge crosses from their data into our model**, and UnGovr did not make that claim. It is drawn `inferred` everywhere it appears, because rendered as an assertion it would be a lie about the source. **[The vault runs live on this site](/vault/)**, decrypted in your browser from a published read key — not a screenshot of one, and not a copy. It is the one page here that opens a network connection. ## 8 · What it cost **Nothing. $0.00.** {{claim:requests-used}} | | | |---|---| | Date | 9 September 2026 | | Workload | 70 requests: 21 named retrievals + 49 entity-detail documents for the coverage sample | | Free tier | 100 entity requests per day, per IP | | Spent | **$0.00.** No 402 was ever returned | | Above the tier | $0.001 per entity request, $0.01 per report, $5.00 minimum wallet | **This section stales fastest**, and the honest version of it is the arithmetic rather than the invoice. A *census* of the law edge — one detail request per entity, because there is no bulk surface carrying it — is 327,138 requests: **about 9 years free, or $327.14 metered.** {{claim:census-cost}} That number is why [the measurement on this site is a sample](/coverage/) and says so. ## 9 · What went wrong **The section nobody else writes.** None of these is a failing, and several are things we would want to know if the data were ours. They are dated, checkable observations, in descending order of how much they matter. ### The law edge stops one hop short An entity carries no addressable path to the law that governs it. `open_records` **is** in the published schema, as an optional object with one string member — the join point is designed. {{claim:schema-declares-law}} It was present on **0 of 49** entities sampled, including six US states whose records laws are in UnGovr's own corpus, and including Santa Barbara County and California itself. {{claim:sb-detail-no-law}} **It is not a defect count** — it is the measurement of how far the join reaches today. **And it is one derivable hop.** [Inferring it by slug prefix reaches 96.6%](/coverage/) of California's 16,071 entities, with a two-line rule, over data UnGovr already publish. {{claim:inferred-reach}} The reason it must be *inferred* and not merged is the other 20.5%: geography and jurisdiction come apart for interstate compacts, tribal nations, federal categories and specially-chartered districts — exactly the bodies a requester most often wants. {{claim:inferred-suspect}} ### The edge is not in any bulk surface, so nobody can measure it `open_records` exists only in the per-entity detail document — one HTTP request each. Their own OpenAPI says the full-depth index is *"a compact record ({slug, name, type, parent_slug?, population?})"*. {{claim:law-not-in-bulk}} **The consequence is that the coverage of this field is not knowable to anyone on the open tier**, ourselves included, which is why the number above is a sample with an interval rather than a census with a total. Putting `open_records` into the bulk files would be the single cheapest improvement to this API's surface. ### Below the law, there is nothing addressable The CPRA record cites `Gov. Code § 7922.535(a)` — which is exactly right, and confirms a section number the vault's own pack had only guessed at. {{claim:provision-confirmed}} But it is **prose inside a free-text field**. {{claim:provision-not-addressable}} There is no provision array, no clause identifier, no byte range. You can cite the Act; you cannot cite the clause, and so you cannot attach evidence to the clause. Everything downstream of a duty — a control, an observation, an acceptance — needs to hang on something smaller than a statute. ### The gated corpus is stronger than expected — and is not open data The AI-law corpus was the highest-value unread thing in this project, and a key for it arrived while this report was being written. **It is much better than the brief predicted.** The brief expected a bare verdict — a summary judgement a reader could neither check nor usefully disagree with. What `ungovr.ai-laws/2` actually carries is **2,915 instruments across 271 jurisdictions**, each with a citation, a URL, a status and an effective date; a per-scenario `basis` naming the controlling authority — Van Buren, hiQ v LinkedIn, Ziff Davis v OpenAI; and a `provenance` block with `as_of_date`, `confidence` and `stale`. {{claim:ai-laws-is-instruments}} **It is checkable, and it is disagreeable-with at the level where that is useful.** The prediction was wrong and the correction is filed. **But it is not CC BY 4.0, and nothing on the API's front door says so.** The OpenAPI document declares the whole Open Data API CC BY 4.0. The AI-law payloads carry their own `license` block — *"UnGovr Data License (non-exclusive, by agreement)"* — whose grant field reads **"No license is conveyed by receipt of this file."** {{claim:ai-laws-licence}} The specific term governs, so **this site and its vault describe and measure that corpus and redistribute none of it**, and there is a build check that refuses to let the payload into either tree. This is the single most consequential thing in this report for anyone building on the API: **a consumer who reads the OpenAPI licence, sees CC BY 4.0, and redistributes what they fetched would be wrong**, and would have had to open a payload to find out. ### The cross-references are described and not exposed GeoNames, Wikidata, OCD and FIPS identifiers appear on the platform pages and in **none** of the published schema definitions. If they were exposed, joining the Atlas to anything else in the world would become free. It is the cheapest possible improvement after the one above. ### Small, specific, and probably worth a fix - **Two source URLs that disagree.** The CPRA record's `law_url` points at the current codification (Division 10, Title 1) and its `primary_source_url` at the one the Act occupied before the 2023 recodification. One is stale. {{claim:source-url-mismatch}} - **No machine-readable statute anywhere.** Both URLs serve JSF-rendered HTML. There is no Akoma Ntoso and no XML, which closes a blocker and **makes one of the vault's own acceptance tests unpassable for this instrument** — recorded as unpassable rather than weakened. {{claim:cpra-no-akn}} - **`products` is returned by every entity and documented by none.** 49 of 49. The schema is behind the API here and ahead of it on `open_records`. {{claim:products-undocumented}} - **`HEAD` returns 405** where `GET` returns 200, so a client cannot size a file before fetching it. The strong `ETag` on `GET` is the better tool anyway. {{claim:head-405}} - **The entity total moves**: 327,138 today against three other figures published elsewhere. Ordinary for a live dataset that rebuilds nightly. **An observation, not a conversation.** {{claim:entity-count-drift}} ### No public repository, so no corrections path There is no clone, no fork, no pull request. Everything above had to be written *here*, on a stranger's website, rather than filed where it belongs. Their own argument makes this awkward: they object to reaching your government becoming a rental metered by whoever owns the index, and an API on one domain is a single point of dependency however good the licence and however good the intentions. ### And one that was ours, not theirs The previous session on this project could not reach `data.ungovr.org` at all — its container's proxy refused CONNECT on the open endpoints, not only the authenticated ones — and it correctly declined a summarising fetch path rather than commit a retrieval it could not hash. **That was our environment, not their API.** This session's container reaches the host fine. {{claim:egress-open}} It is recorded here because the sibling site's ledger opens with the same scar, and because the refusal is worth more as a logged entry than as an absence. --- ## What this report does not claim - It does not claim the semantic layer this estate builds on top is shipped. [It is designed](/join/), and one MVP of it is built. - It does not claim any of the above is a mistake on UnGovr's part. **They built for a person reaching their government, and for that the data is shaped right.** The gap only appears when you want to reach the clause underneath. - It does not claim to know what they want. [No conversation has happened.](#1-disclosure) - It does not claim the coverage number is a census. [It is a sample of 49, with an interval, and the query is published beside it.](/coverage/) --- This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).The Open Data API does not read
ungovr.org/open-data/api-keys — product: Open Data API, API keys — read 9 September 2026Authorization, so a bearer token is ignored and the request is answered as an anonymous one.