Research programme leadership and measurement expertise

Amy Orben

Amy Orben is identified as the University of Cambridge lead of the Toolbox for Measuring Online CSEA project. She is also a credited coauthor of its October 2024 reliability analyses, alongside Matthew Richards and Sakshi Ghai.

Her place within the Toolbox project

The DFC report identifies Orben as project lead on page 8. The Work Package 2 report credits her as a coauthor of the reliability analyses. The guiding-principles report is Work Package 3 and names its own authors. Project leadership connects these outputs organisationally; it does not assign Orben authorship or final approval of every policy recommendation in the separate report.

What the records show

Amy OrbenToolbox WP2 reliability analyses, October 2024

is a credited co-author of

Report dated 1 October 2024.

Report credits Matthew Richards, Sakshi Ghai and Amy Orben. This authorship does not allocate drafting or approval of the separate DFC WorkPackage3 report.

From the investigation

1. REPHRAIN: award confirmation, output identity, missing instrument

The same UKRI record links the WP2 reliability-analysis page. That artifact is dated 1 October2024 and credits Matthew Richards, Sakshi Ghai and Amy Orben . Its rationale names an evaluation report and shareable analytical code, alongside intended updating with Cambridge/LSE/UNICEF teams through2025. This is a real published work product; it is separate from the retained December2024 DFC WorkPackage3 report. I read its identity and rationale, not its scientific validity or executable code.

Read the research & sources ↗
Who funded and contributed

Reportp5 identifies the research as part of Toolbox for Measuring Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse , funded through REPHRAIN's fourth Strategic Funding Call . It identifies UKRI as REPHRAIN's funder. P8 says Amy Orben of Cambridge led the project and this report is work package3. The current DFC project page independently documents the publisher's account of project funding and participating institutions; it shares project ancestry with the report and is not an independent audit of the money.

Read the research & sources ↗

Further reading

Encryption-guidance origins: funding, review access and the missing wording record

Award instruments: bounded public-source return

Read the original sources 2

What the connections say

2 relationships