Observed 9 September 2026. Bounded award/conditions lane, now closed. This packet does not replace donor governance or recipient accounts work. No case, renderer, ZIP, current-work or Explorer changes.
The public record separates a three-year programme from later support. Nominet announced a £5.1m pledge in October 2021; its 2025 retrospective says that grant ended in March. A subsequent named research commission includes disclosed donor input into study design. An early-2022 IWF role description also establishes a financial-reporting and evaluator-liaison structure. None of these records supplies an executed UKSIC grant agreement or general donor editorial veto.
| Record | What it establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Nominet announcement, 29 October 2021 | GBP5.1m pledged to help fund UKSIC over three years; intended to replace lost EU support. UKSIC comprises IWF, Childnet and SWGfL. | Executed agreement, instalment schedule, precise commencement day, recipient allocation or completed payment. |
| Nominet announcement, 25 January 2022 | A GBP250,000 commitment for Safer Internet Day 2022, described as made before the October pledge. | Payment, precise commitment day or a consolidated accounting reconciliation. Keep this named commitment separate; do not mechanically add it to annual UKSIC amounts. |
| Nominet FY2024 summary, grants table | UKSIC GBP1,599,000 for year ended31March2024, in a table of grants over£250k. IWF GBP250,000 is a separate row. | SWGfL-only amount, three equal instalments, or a banking record showing the consortium allocation. |
| FY2025 donor table supplied by parallel lane | UKSIC GBP1,647,000; donor lane owns substantive accounts reading. This lane encountered the indexed table only. | Independent full-original validation by this worker. Neither annual number should be added to the aggregate award as an additional award. |
| 2025 Impact Issue, PDF8/printed14–15 | Nominet reports the three-year grant ended in March and the partnership ended in its existing form, while committing to continued work/support. March2025 follows the edition context; no exact termination day asserted. | Automatic renewal, total withdrawal of support, default/breach, or exercise of a contractual termination right. |
| Safer Internet Day2026 report | A distinct Nominet-funded commission with disclosed design input and named research delivery. | Amount, executed contract, cash dates, or proof this commission was an extension/drawdown of the £5.1m award. |
The [2021 announcement](http[local research file] describes a pledge despite its headline saying the Centre receives funding. It also describes separate Childnet Digital Leaders+, SWGfL Project Evolve and IWF Countering Harm support. Those programmes cannot silently be included in the consortium allocation. The [January2022 announcement](http[local research file] distinguishes the earlier Safer Internet Day commitment. The [FY2024 summary](http[local research file] is a donor financial summary, not a recipient bank statement.
The retained [IWF Project Officer recruitment pack](http[local research file] contains a dedicated “Nominet grant for UK Safer Internet Centre” section at PDF7/printed6. The role is to communicate with Nominet and subcontractors it identifies, including evaluators; liaise with UKSIC partners, particularly the Secretariat, on financial returns/reports to Nominet; and coordinate IWF compliance with its obligations. Quarterly progress reports expressly go to IWF’s Senior Leadership Team. The neighbouring grant-management section describes internal monitoring/evaluation and approval by the Deputy CEO before new applications; those generic duties must not become bespoke Nominet contractual rights.
This is stronger evidence than a logo: IWF publicly designed a role around grant communication and reporting, including funder-identified evaluators. It is still a recruitment specification, not an executed agreement, appointed-person record, named evaluator engagement, submitted report or evidence that Nominet accepted an output. No publication-clearance, withdrawal, clawback or renewal clause appears in the inspected job-description passages. PDF10/printed9 gives a closing date of11February2022; PDF metadata creation/modification is20January2022. These do not establish an exact public publication date or current staffing arrangement.
The [2025 retrospective](http[local research file] credited to Social Impact Lead Adam Groves, is explicit about the grant ending. It associates funding with Safer Internet Day, helplines, removal work and policy contributions, including the Online Safety Act and school-filtering standards. These are donor/recipient impact claims, not output-acceptance documents or independent evidence that funding caused particular legal changes. Their presence does not confer donor clearance authority.
The [2026 report](http[local research file] says Nominet commissioned and funded the research; Childnet led study design with Nominet input; Opinium conducted surveys in November2025 of2,018 children and2,000 parents/carers. Childnet separately consulted youth groups in November–December2025 and ran school focus groups in May–June2025. This supports an attributed commissioning-and-design-input relation, with Childnet retaining the stated lead role. It does not establish which questions Nominet changed, a right of veto, or control over survey responses. The public report is a delivered publication, without a located contractual acceptance record. Its year is2026; the January URL directory is not an exact publication date. No survey-result validity audit was conducted.
A [20December2024 parliamentary answer](http[local research file] to a question about support after March2025, promises continued government engagement toward sustainable funding. It is not a government funding award or underwriting commitment.
All acquisition ended after nine focused query strings and the decisive public records. Nominet original GET routes were already closed in the parallel donor lane; this worker made no Nominet GET or URL-variant retry. Nominet sources here are retained web-reader/search responses, not original HTML/PDF bytes, and their hashes must never be labelled original hashes. The 2025 Impact Issue screenshot returned an internal error. The2026 screenshot returned a reference without an image available for this worker to inspect; no visual verification claimed for either. The IWF ordinary public GET succeeded after its web reader failed; original bytes, derived text and the visually checked PDF7 image are retained.
Actual source scopes:2021 announcement reader lines43–84 (complete article including notes);2022 announcement lines43–90 (complete article);2025 Impact Issue PDF8/printed14–15 complete two-page spread, plus foreword context PDF2;FY2024 summary PDF5 funding table and adjacent funding-account context in reader;2026 report cover, PDF2 commissioning/method paragraph and accompanying sample/context, PDF3–4 forewords; parliamentary question/answer lines17–39. IWF PDF1 and5–11 text read, decisive PDF7 visually checked; no claim to have read PDF2–4. Current Our Impact page was only partially inspected and supports no additional substantive proposition here. The February2024 Nominet blog reader failed; its search excerpt is retained as a lead only. Scope metadata and exact hashes are in uksic-awards-captures.json.
No executed grant, allocation schedule, amendment/renewal agreement, bespoke approval/clawback clause, named evaluator contract or delivered financial return was located in this pass. That is a bounded retrieval result, not proof no such conditions exist. Current DNS Fund application rules are a different instrument and were not imported into UKSIC grants.
The most useful next record is the2021/2022 Nominet–UKSIC grant agreement and financial/reporting schedule, including any Secretariat administration arrangement and evaluator terms. Likely custodians are Nominet’s public-benefit team and the UKSIC Secretariat/three consortium charities. A second precise record is the2025/2026 Nominet–Childnet research brief or commissioning agreement: it would show whether disclosed design input was advisory, jointly agreed or backed by final approval. No outreach is authorised or undertaken. The local forest implication is a demonstrable funding-to-reporting/design route with a dated programme end, not an undifferentiated continuing donor command.