Findings

Overclaim boundary: Establishes the program and its functions from the city's transparency portal and ALPR policy. Exact quotations from those documents await line-by-line visual review. Current camera count and current feature configuration are not established.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes the policy as obtained. Whether it remains in force unchanged, and whether it was adopted by the council or issued at department level, is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes that these records exist as produced to the investigation. Some contract PDFs are image scans not yet verified page-by-page. The final contract execution chronology and the complete deployment history are not established.

Overclaim boundary: Based on the meeting records reviewed to date. The full agenda text and a timestamped comparison against the meeting recording are still pending, so the exact agenda wording — and what the complete audio shows — is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes that the sixteen permits exist. Field-by-field visual review of the scanned permits is pending. Whether related electrical or building permits, or exemptions, exist is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Based on a working extraction of the permit PDFs, not yet quoted directly from each original. The authority for the fee waiver, and whether every permit shares identical fields, are not established.

Overclaim boundary: Established by exact file-hash comparison of the two productions; retaining the underlying source files permits later verification.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes that Flock solicited a pre-vote signature with a void-if-not-approved condition. It does not establish that anyone at WDM signed before the vote.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes what Flock's email said. Whether Flock's installation planning reflected any actual city authorization is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes the content of WDM's email. The final contract price at the time of the vote is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Who signed what, and when, is not established; the signature pages and execution dates have not been fully verified.

Overclaim boundary: Based on DIAL's written correspondence. Quotation of the agency's exact language awaits verification against the original PDF.

Overclaim boundary: Based on a July 8, 2026 capture of the state contractor-registration portal. Whether the registration has since been renewed, altered, or revoked is not established.

Overclaim boundary: An absence-of-record finding: it reflects the records gathered by this investigation, not a complete search of city or state files. Internal citation or penalty records, if any exist, have not been produced.

Overclaim boundary: Correspondence alone cannot establish a legal conclusion. No court or Attorney General determination has resolved the question.

Overclaim boundary: Based on DIAL's written response. Quotation of its exact language awaits verification against the original PDF. Whether Flock used licensed subcontractors or qualified for an exemption is not established.

Overclaim boundary: The letter is evidence of DIAL's position, not necessarily a binding directive. The scope of WDM's enforcement duty as the authority having jurisdiction, and any WDM response, are not established.

Overclaim boundary: An absence-of-record finding: it reflects what public-records requests have produced to date, not a complete search of city files. WDM internal enforcement, permit, or exemption records may exist and have not been produced.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes that the complaint was filed. The agency's formal acknowledgement is not included in the published record, and whether DIAL opened a separate Chapter 100C matter is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Raises a legal question only. No Chapter 100C violation is established, and no agency has ruled on whether the chapter applies to Flock.

Overclaim boundary: The 2022 engineering document has not been independently obtained; its contents rest on secondary references. The city's April 8, 2026 statement is limited to what the Flock Safety application lists — it is not a direct statement about physical camera hardware. Whether OWL cameras were renamed, removed, replaced, or reclassified is not established. A secondhand account of the June 5, 2026 public-safety subcommittee meeting (the police chief reportedly confirming a Flock contract for cameras at Raccoon River Park) has not been verified against the primary meeting record and is not relied on.

Overclaim boundary: Based on the investigator's field photographs. A formal index tying each photograph to a mapped camera position has not been completed. Installation date, installer, contract, retention, and access policy are not established.

Overclaim boundary: An absence-of-record finding: records requests for AXIS contracts, policies, and installer records are outstanding, and no responsive records have been produced to date.

Overclaim boundary: Quotations come from a transcript not yet checked word-for-word against the meeting audio. Whether the mayor later issued a written clarification is not established.

Overclaim boundary: An earlier count of 39 "swap pairs" came from a derived spreadsheet and does not reproduce from the raw exports under independent re-analysis; it is not relied on and should not be cited. What the exports do show is structural: whole rows turn over between snapshots in a pattern consistent with a rolling ~30-day export window, which limits public auditability — this is not evidence that any record was altered. The technical cause, and whether it originates in the source system, the export process, or the display layer, are not established. A separately published analysis reaches the same overall pattern by a different method and flags 17 records reappearing non-sequentially across snapshots — something a rolling window alone does not fully explain; its separate per-day mutation-rate figure did not reproduce and is not relied on.

Overclaim boundary: A negative finding: the evidence shows an audit-integrity failure and does not identify any cause, actor, or mechanism — intentional tampering is not asserted. The finding depends on the analysis method being independently reproducible; the underlying retention architecture is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Reported for the other cities from their published exports. Independent reproduction from those cities' raw files is pending, and whether each city's export uses the same schema and settings is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Rests on a summary of the decision rather than a full quoted analysis. How the decision applies to the specific vendor-held record categories at issue in WDM has not been tested.

Overclaim boundary: Some tracked statuses use "Pending" for requests that are planned but not yet filed, so status labels alone cannot support a non-production allegation. Filed dates, statutory deadlines, claimed exemptions, and privilege logs are not established.

Overclaim boundary: The report has not yet completed the investigation's full source-verification process. It establishes only that the report lists Clearview AI among WDM police technologies — not that Clearview was or is actively used, nor its cost, users, or governing policy.

Overclaim boundary: A negative finding limited to the records obtained to date: no Clearview contract, invoice, policy, or usage log has been produced or located. It does not establish that such records do not exist.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes that the notifications were received. Exact dates, who authorized the integrations, and the actual scope of access are not established.

Overclaim boundary: The FAQ is a private property manager's document, not a WDM or JCTC agreement. Whether any WDM/JCTC agreement, master camera agreement, CJIS addendum, or data-custody arrangement exists is not established.

Overclaim boundary: Based on an investigator-created text transcription of selections in the City of West Des Moines Flock Public Transparency Portal, not a city-provided export. It does not establish actual data access, duration, current status, or policy basis.

Overclaim boundary: Establishes the April 20 statement that Flock would be on the June 5 agenda. The subcommittee's actual June 5 materials and attendance are not documented here.

Overclaim boundary: The timestamped comparison between the meeting audio and the approved minutes has not been completed. The exact wording at issue, and whether any omission is legally material, are not established.