Observed 9 September 2026. Bounded acquisition closed after the two intended recipient accounts. All amounts below are GBP. This packet adds a recipient-side accounting and governance view; it does not establish bank receipts, a consortium allocation schedule or donor control over policy.
The three charities' accounts all cover the year ended 31 March 2025. Their UKSIC-related restricted income rows sum to £1,779,208, compared with Nominet's £1,647,000 UKSIC grants-table amount for the same year end. The £132,208 difference is unreconciled. It is not missing or diverted cash. The retained records give no bridge establishing identical coverage and recognition bases.
| Recipient and exact row | FY2025 income | FY2025 expenditure | Transfer into fund | FY2024 income | Original locator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South West Grid for Learning Trust: Nominet Grant | £773,395 | £773,395 | No transfer column; opening and closing balances zero | £842,780 | Note 19, PDF 34–36 / printed 32–34 |
| Internet Watch Foundation: Nominet UKSIC | £568,707 | £593,101 | £24,394 | £551,852 | Note 18a–c, PDF/printed 30–32; also Note 3, PDF 24 |
| Childnet: Nominet UKSIC 9 | £437,106 | £546,529 | £109,423 | £422,168 | Note 18, PDF 35–36 / printed 33–34 |
Each of the three FY2025 rows has zero opening and closing fund balances. Those balances and recorded expenditure are not evidence that every deliverable was accepted or every payable settled. IWF explicitly explains that unrestricted funds covered the UKSIC deficit. Childnet shows a transfer into its UKSIC fund; the same table includes transfers into and out of several other funds, so the individual transfer should not be confused with its net general-fund movement of £107,192.
The [SWGfL original](http[local research file] PDF 36, expressly identifies its Nominet fund as funding from Nominet for operating UKSIC with consortium members. This is separate from the same page's Pershing/StopNCII purpose. Its PDF 22 recognition policy requires entitlement, performance conditions met, probable receipt and reliable measurement, with deferral where applicable.
The [IWF original](http[local research file] Note 18c/PDF 32, explicitly describes its UKSIC fund as a grant from Nominet assisting Hotline running costs as part of UKSIC. Its attribution is therefore not inferred solely from a label. The same paragraph states that there are no unfulfilled conditions relating to amounts recognized that year. This is positive evidence at that recognition scope. It is not an inspected donor acceptance certificate, banking ledger or assurance that every obligation outside those recognized amounts was fulfilled. Notes 1d–e/PDF 21–22 recognize income when entitlement, relevant performance conditions, probable receipt and reliable measurement are satisfied; expenditure is accrued against obligations.
The Childnet original.
The donor comparison is taken from the parallel, reviewed donor-resources.md: Nominet's [FY2025 report](http[local research file] PDF 6 grants table, reports £1,647,000 for UKSIC and excludes the separate £1.6m transfer into Nominet's CAF account for later distribution. The donor lane read the official web-reader text; no successful original PDF bytes were retained. This recipient worker read that scoped packet, not the donor original. Donor commitments/accrual policy, recipient recognition timing, award-period spillover, other income within a recipient fund or the donor table's coverage are possible reconciliation questions, not established explanations. Matching year ends alone does not settle them.
Other Nominet programmes remain separate. IWF Note 3/PDF 24 reports £226,352 of technical-project grant income; Note 18a/PDF 30 reports £226,351 for the corresponding technical fund. Both original tables were visually checked: the £1 discrepancy is retained without correction or an inferred cause. Neither amount belongs in the UKSIC comparison. Childnet's separate Nominet Enhance fund has £11,783 income, £1,959 expenditure and £9,824 transferred out (PDF 35), also excluded from the UKSIC sum.
Childnet's trustees' report gives a concrete next instrument. PDF 12/printed 10 says it has a formal partnership agreement with SWGfL and IWF for UKSIC projects now part-funded by Nominet. The same page says trustees review and approve formal partnerships and major contractual relationships before signature. Day-to-day authority sits with the CEO and Business Manager under the annual business plan and budget, with payments above £3,000 additionally authorized by the Chair. These are reported internal controls and an agreement-existence disclosure, not the agreement's text, an observed approval minute or a Nominet reserved right.
This complements the separate uksic-awards.md finding from the [IWF Project Officer recruitment pack](http[local research file] PDF 7/printed 6: financial returns and reports through the UKSIC Secretariat, liaison with Nominet-identified evaluators/subcontractors, and internal progress reporting. That earlier operational role specification is not proof that a named person was appointed, that an evaluator accepted these FY2025 outputs or that the donor had publication clearance. No signed consortium/grant agreement, acceptance report, bespoke editorial condition or renewal schedule was acquired in this recipient pass.
Childnet reports Safer Internet Day on 11 February 2025, over 1,700 registered supporting organisations, almost 160,000 educational-resource downloads and more than 86,000 quiz uses (PDF 8/printed 6). It explicitly credits Nominet support alongside other funders. This supports a reported delivery relationship, without attributing all outputs or costs exclusively to Nominet. The same page's survey-evaluation prose mixes 2024 and 2025 references; its percentage results are not relied on here. The auditors' report, PDF 16–17/printed 14–15, gives the financial-statements opinion and expressly distinguishes other annual-report information, so the delivery narrative is not independently audited impact evidence.
IWF's trustees' report, PDF 7, attributes the IntelliGrade Multichild feature to Nominet-funded technology work and reports 70,898 children recorded during 2024 who would otherwise have gone unrecorded. This is an operator-reported counting capability/output; it is not a separately verified number of removals, and the inspected text does not assign this feature to the UKSIC Hotline grant rather than the separately described technical programme. This packet preserves that funding-purpose boundary.
The award packet separately reads Nominet's 2025 Impact Issue.
The newly retained IWF original has 34 PDF pages; SHA256 0f96cd95f93b3155cb46163dc64fe04604148d8a57e6d9f5e99c5459d465d433. Text read: PDF 1,7,9,16,17,21,22,24,30–32; PDF 24 and30–32 visually checked. Capture is not a full-document read.
The newly retained Childnet original has 38 scanned PDF pages; SHA256 64a68bdf33c2ecdb9c36da5ae5c11c912b1b3079e7eb979d2623d7abe6e8506e. Full-size images read: PDF 2,5,6,8,9,11–14,16–17,23–24,26,33–36. The whole-document contact sheet was navigation only. Text extraction produced no substantive content; its headings-only derivative is excluded as evidence. Local rendering of retained bytes succeeded. The public Companies House overview identifies Childnet, company 03958416; the original notes identify charity 1080173. No officer/residential details were researched or included.
The reused SWGfL original has SHA256 3dce487d6ef022565efc4d10e947ee4427c401edb7a3b056ef98b37cdfac96c5 and remains in the prior stopncii-governance wave. This lane visually reread PDF 22 and34–36; prior wider scope remains in operator-resources.md. No reacquisition or prior sidecar mutation was made. IWF is company 03426366; SWGfL is company 05589479. Exact original URLs, successful GET observations, hashes, scopes and derivative ancestry are in recipient-captures.json.
Acquisition closed at the intended two new recipient records. Targeted primary searches and Companies House's actual filing links were used. The Companies House overview's failed web-reader method was replaced once with a successful ordinary public GET. Closed Nominet, oversized FY2026 and Charity Commission routes were not retried. No sign-in, form, outreach or paid route was used.
The strongest next discriminator is the consortium partnership/grant agreement and the FY2025 donor-to-recipient reconciliation or financial return, held by the three recipient charities/UKSIC Secretariat and Nominet. These would distinguish allocation and timing from extra fund income and show actual reporting, acceptance or approval rights. The present record already establishes purpose restrictions, recipient expenditure, internal approval and reported delivery. It leaves donor direction of specific advocacy and the £132,208 accounting bridge unresolved. Recipient governance and contributions from other funds remain a defensible alternative to treating financing as an undifferentiated command relationship. No further branch was opened.