Closed 9 September 2026. This lane sought the actual approved mandate, the first monitoring trustee report due in November 2025, or a Commission response, including researcher-access results and evidence sharing with the Article 37 auditor. No such case-specific substantive record was acquired. The two new HTML captures document the public routes inspected; neither is a completed monitoring report. The adopted decision and appointment notice are reused originals from the preceding accepted run.
The defensible result is a defined disclosure gap, not a finding that Ankura failed to report, that the Commission did nothing, or that AliExpress complied. The 2026 cycle ends on 30 September 2026 and its report is due within two months thereafter; it is not yet due at this research snapshot.
The Commission's [supervision index](http[local research file] which displays information updated on 31 August 2026, was read specifically at the AliExpress entry. Its 18 June 2025 row links the commitments narrative, monitoring trustee notice, adopted decision and press release. There is no separately labelled mandate, work plan, completed trustee report or Commission response in that inspected entry. The later 20 July 2026 fine is also listed, but the accepted preceding packet establishes its separate illegal-product risk assessment and mitigation scope. It cannot fill this researcher-access monitoring gap. This index is an overview of main enforcement activity, not a representation that every case document is published.
Original oversight-index.html; scoped text oversight-index.derived.txt; exact relevant hrefs retained in oversight-index.links.json; official-reader representation oversight-index.reader.txt, lines 33–64. The links still resolve by identity to the already retained decision and appointment URLs: [decision 124718](http[local research file] and [appointment notice 124727](http[local research file] They were not downloaded again.
Ankura's [Monitorship & Independent Oversight page](http[local research file] describes services and a different, unnamed automotive engagement. Its substantive body does not identify an AliExpress mandate, examination, finding or delivered report. It is retained as an inspected search route and excluded as proof of case-specific work. Original oversight-ankura.html; body/links derivatives and official-reader representation retained. The page provides no exact publication or modification date in the inspected body; the reader's copyright year is not an engagement date. No contact or form was used, and no unrelated case or biography was followed.
The retained [18 June 2025 decision and annex](http[local research file] ../dsa-access-enforcement-wave-2026-09-09/ali-decision.pdf, supplies a precise record chain. This run text-read PDF 75–77, Annex C.5–17; earlier accepted scope for the wider decision is preserved in the prior manifest. No new visual reading is claimed.
| Expected record or act | Adopted requirement | What is established here |
|---|---|---|
| Approved trustee mandate | C.5, PDF 75: Commission approves the proposed mandate, with modifications it considers necessary; appointment follows that approved mandate. | The separate appointment notice confirms approval of Ankura Consulting (Europe), Limited on 23 September 2025. It does not publish the mandate or disclose its negotiated terms. |
| Detailed work plan | C.11, PDF 76: trustee proposes its monitoring work plan to the Commission within one month of appointment. | Required submission; actual plan and receipt not acquired. |
| First report | C.10, PDF 75, and C.12(iv), PDF 76: first report by 30 November 2025 covers the initial period ending 30 September 2025. Initial implementation was on a best-efforts basis; full obligations apply thereafter. | Due date and initial assessment standard are established; delivery, tested scope, findings and Commission reaction remain unacquired. |
| Researcher-access evidence | Prior accepted Annex B.V.7, PDF 66: semiannual material includes request totals, processing/approval/rejection, researcher feedback and technical tests. C.12(v), PDF 76 separately requires the trustee's opinion on the first internal QA semiannual report within one month. | This identifies useful expected evidence. No actual request counts, feedback, test results or trustee opinion was found. The first interim report should not automatically be treated as a full-year or mature-system evaluation. |
| Noncompliance response | C.12(vi)–(viii), PDF 76–77: trustee may propose necessary measures; must promptly report reasonably concluded failure to the Commission and answer its questions. | Duties and permitted response, not an observed finding, recommendation or correction. |
The first report goes to the Commission, with a contemporaneous copy to AliExpress that removes confidential third-party material where applicable (C.12(iv)). C.13(iv), PDF 77, restricts disclosure of confidential information and prohibits trustee public statements concerning performance of its functions. Those provisions make nonpublic reporting a plausible explanation for the search result. They neither establish that the whole report is confidential nor determine whether the Commission could release a nonconfidential version. No case-specific confidentiality or access-to-documents refusal was acquired.
C.12(iii), PDF 76, requires the trustee to minimise repetitive overlap with the Article 37 auditor. Where information is missing, the trustee may first ask whether the auditor has already collected it, request a copy, and rely on or incorporate the resulting material. AliExpress undertakes reasonably required steps enabling that disclosure. In the other direction, C.14, PDF 77, provides that the auditor will receive access, at its request, to relevant monitoring and reporting documents prepared by the trustee for the Commission.
This is an express two-way evidence route. It does not prove that either party requested documents, shared a particular test or finding, or accepted the other's conclusions. No automatic wholesale publication or transfer to researchers follows. The actual sharing request, document log or auditor reference to the first trustee report would discriminate between a permitted route and its exercise. Provider Article 37 audit discovery belongs to the parallel root lane and was not duplicated here.
Thirteen targeted indexed queries were run in four batches, combining the exact service, trustee, case number, mandate, first-report date, researcher and Commission/Ankura domain terms. The complete query list and selected returned-path assessment are in oversight-search-log.json. Search returned the existing Commission announcement and case index, generic Ankura services, secondary summaries and unrelated results. It did not yield a new case-specific Commission or Ankura mandate, first report or response that could be read. Search result ranking and indexing are incomplete and can relax terms; this is not a comprehensive archive search.
A public professional profile snippet attributed an appointment announcement to the named trustee, and an adviser firm's snippet described support to Ankura. Neither was opened or acquired, and neither supplied a report or mandate. They remain discovery only; no personnel or subcontract decision is added. Generic other consumer-commitment reports and provider financial/audit results were excluded rather than mistaken for this monitoring instrument. Both selected original GETs returned HTTP 200; no failed transport route or fallback loop occurred in this run. Previously closed routes were not retried.
The strongest rival explanation to nonperformance is that the first report was delivered privately under this recipient/confidentiality structure and has not been located publicly. Its converse remains possible too; the present record does not decide. The most useful next record is a nonconfidential version or receipt/response for Ankura's first interim report due 30 November 2025, ideally with the researcher-access section and the Article 37 auditor cross-reference. Expected holders are Ankura, the Commission and AliExpress for its copy; the auditor may have relevant material if it requested access. The approved mandate and work plan would clarify the examination design. No request, contact or further acquisition was initiated.