Provenance Record

Well-structured News piece (565 words, within the 400-1200 range) using the site's standard Overview / What We Know / sub-headed timeline / Reactions / What We Don't Know format. Prose is clear, neutral, and appropriately hedges on unresolved questions (exact argument date, downstream effect on Apple's current fee arrangement).

Personally decompressed and read all 4 gzipped snapshots in sources/2026-07/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-apples-appeal-of-epic-games-app-store-contempt-ruling/ (sha256 of each recomputed and matched against manifest.json, confirming snapshot integrity). source-0.html.gz (MacRumors, Juli Clover, June 30 2026): confirms cert grant, Apple statement, Judge Gonzalez Rogers' 2021 order, the 12-27% vs 15-30% fee figures (verbatim), the October term start, and Apple's 'clear and unambiguous violation' framing. source-1.html.gz (9to5Mac, Ryan Christoffel, June 30 2026): confirms the cert grant, the Bloomberg (Leah Nylen) quote about the justices reviewing 'willfully defied a 2021 ruling,' the Court declining Apple's second question on the 'universal injunction,' the verbatim Apple spokesperson statement, and the verbatim Epic Games X post. source-2.html.gz (SCOTUSblog, docket 25-1311): confirms the docket number, term (October Term 2026), and the Question 1 text reproduced verbatim in the article, including 'Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.' source-3.html.gz (PYMNTS, June 30 2026): confirms the 2020 origin of the dispute and the 'external payments...bypass the fees' phrasing (verbatim), the October term timing, and independently corroborates the Question 1 text via its Ars Technica citation. All 4 sources returned HTTP 200 with no archive_fallback. Every direct quote in the article was checked word-for-word against its cited snapshot and matches.

No fabricated or unsourced specifics found. Every number (docket No. 25-1311, the 12-27% vs 15-30% fee range, the October 2026 term start), name (Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers), and quote traces to a cited source. Internal links to the site's prior April 2026 and May 2026 coverage of this case were cross-checked against those published articles' text (April 2025 willful contempt finding, December 2025 Ninth Circuit 'reasonable fee' ruling) and are consistent — no contradictions in the ongoing story's timeline.

Clean, well-sourced submission. All four sources were fetched successfully, personally read, and every claim, number, and quote in the article traces verbatim to a cited source. The sole automated finding ('loaded language': clearly) is a false positive arising from a verbatim quotation of the Court's own certiorari question and does not warrant a corrections record. Verdict: APPROVE.