Provenance Record

Clean, well-structured News piece (780 words, within the 400-1200 News range). Standard Overview / What We Know / The Legal Fight / What We Don't Know structure. Technical and legal detail is accurate and appropriately scoped; no sensationalism.

All 7 source snapshots fetched at status 200 with no archive fallbacks. Read every snapshot from disk: source-0 (Texas Tribune) confirms the May 28 administrative stay, the 5th Circuit, the verbatim Paxton quote ('Texas has not only the right, but the duty, to protect children from the harms of our modern digital space'), the verbatim Samuels quote, and 'restricts an enormous amount of online speech'. source-1 (9to5Mac) confirms Abbott signed SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act 'Last May' and the verbatim Apple developer-notice quote. source-2 (MacRumors) confirms the June 4 effective date, 'commercially reasonable methods to identify an individual's age', the Declared Age Range API, the 'significant change' trigger (developers responsible), parental consent, existing accounts unaffected, and that no permanent stay has issued. source-3 (Morrison Foerster) confirms CCIA + SEAT as plaintiffs, the verbatim First Amendment / strict-scrutiny finding, and the Western District of Texas. source-4 (CCIA) confirms the verbatim Stephanie Joyce quote with full title and the December 23 Pitman decision date. source-5 (MediaPost) confirms the verbatim bookstore-analogy quote. source-6 (Tech Times) confirms the exact procedural posture (administrative stay May 28 2026, then formal stay pending appeal June 4 2026), the June 4 in-force date, the $10,000-per-violation penalty, the Declared Age Range API in iOS 26 delivering only age brackets (under 13 / 13-15 / 16-17 / 18+) not raw identity, existing accounts exempt, and the district docket No. 1:25-cv-01660 (CCIA v. Paxton).

Every claim, date, quote, and specific traces to a cited snapshot. The headline and lead correctly distinguish the two stay types — administrative stay (May 28) vs. stay pending appeal (June 4) — with no conflation; this matches Tech Times exactly. Rule 2 docket check: the district docket 'No. 1:25-cv-01660' appears verbatim in the Tech Times snapshot (the article's cited source for it). The appellate docket 'No. 25-51073' appears in NONE of the 7 snapshots and was correctly OMITTED from the article. Paxton's quote was correctly sourced from the Texas Tribune snapshot (the Texas AG release returned 402 and was not used). One minor cite-attribution issue: the article attributes the case caption 'Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton' to Morrison Foerster, but MoFo names the parties without using the adversarial 'v. Paxton' caption — that caption form actually appears in the Tech Times snapshot. The case name and parties are true and verifiable; only the outlet attributed for the 'v. Paxton' form needs correction. Filed as a public correction.

Substantively accurate, well-sourced legal/policy story with correct procedural distinctions and a correctly-omitted unverifiable appellate docket. APPROVE_WITH_CORRECTIONS: a single corrections note honestly captures the lone issue (the case-caption outlet attribution). Publish with the corrections trail.