Nova · 8 September 2026 · Bounded public-acquisition return against case-r6
The new evidence identifies institutional budget rights, an amended funding route, a commissioned research product and a named Oak contribution to that product. It does not identify Alan Parker as the decisionmaker behind the two existing grants, or establish a donor veto over WeProtect publications. The useful geometry is two partly connected chains: Oak → Safe Futures Hub → commissioned review, with named advisory input; and external donors → Dutch WeProtect foundation → budget-constrained UK operating company. Their exact grant instruments still matter.
Oak's public process identifies a gate, not a named grant approver
Oak's [three-page grant-process guide](http[local research file] pp2–3, describes programme-officer screening and collaborative application development, review involving finance and programme leadership, and a recommendation to unspecified senior foundation members. Both parties sign a grant letter before funds are wired. The guide is undated; its URL contains 2019/11 and the current grant-making page still links it.
The [current grant-making page](http[local research file] says renewals are separate awards, core support is unrestricted, and applicants are told who will decide. Its general 20%-of-organisational-budget / 50%-of-project-budget guidelines permit exceptions discussed with staff. These are policy statements, not proof that either named grant complied with a ratio or retained a specific termination right. The [FAQ](http[local research file] also describes recipient-led strategy and advance discussion of funding exits. This supplies a serious alternative explanation: selection of aligned, independently directed recipients followed by ordinary financial oversight.
Missing: the signed 2023 5Rights and 2025 WeProtect letters, concept notes, approval record and applicable renewal/reporting clauses. No new personal direction edge for Alan Parker is proposed. Existing e159–e161 remain intact.
The operating constraint is inside WeProtect
The [director-signed 2023 accounts](http[local research file] pp10,15,17,21, separate Stichting The WePROTECT Global Alliance (Dutch registration 76585379) from its controlled UK company. They disclose a 2021 agreement requiring a submitted annual budget, prior written permission for spending outside it, and a discretionary deduction of underspend from later grants. The €1,520,482 UK subgrant is an internal 2023 expenditure, eliminated in consolidation.
Page17 also records a revealing amendment: Together for Girls' original $400,000 Safe Futures commitment became $100,000 when the remaining $300,000 moved to “Swiss Philanthropy”; the replacement $430,000 agreement added $130,000, for March2024–February2027. Do not add $400,000 and $430,000. Exact Swiss legal identity, hosted fund and upstream donor remain unestablished.
The source is byte-identical to the retained September7 PDF: newly inspected content, not independent confirmation. Its final page contains an auditor-report heading without a substantive opinion; this return does not call it independently audited. [December2023 minutes](http[local research file] separately record Policy Board approval of the 2024 budget.
Oak support reaches an actual commissioned review
The [2024 evidence review](http[local research file] goes further. Page105 expressly identifies Safe Futures Hub as commissioner, Oak as supporter, three lead authors, and a named group of advisers/key informants—including Duch—credited with shaping the review. WeProtect's Iain Drennan appears in leadership and Shailey Hingorani in the core team. Page104 describes over 750 comments, suggestions and edits being reviewed. Pages17–18 distinguish systematically screened studies from additional literature; stakeholder feedback contributed particularly to the latter.
This earns a contribution relationship to a specific output. It does not identify Duch's individual comments, an enforced editorial condition, a veto, or final manuscript approver. A broad expert consultation with recipient-selected content remains compatible with the record. The [publication page](http[local research file] dates publication to 22 October2024 and its update to 15 September2025. No attribution of NetID adoption or a specific statute is made.
The later [2025 guidance framework](http[local research file] pp3,9–11,79–80, is a useful discrimination check. It acknowledges Oak support, credits Arti Mohan as author, and describes leadership/core and external draft review. The three advisory members specifically thanked for direct contribution are Manjeer Mukherjee, Sabine Rakotomalala and Shanaaz Mathews. Duch is not among those three. Generic advisory membership must not be projected into every publication. The guidance calls its tools adaptable rather than prescriptive; this is not a binding policy instrument.
The European research-to-advocacy route is also explicit
WeProtect's [2023 annual review](http[local research file] pp5–7, identifies the Oak-supported Safe Futures launch and describes commissioning research, including the Economist Impact European survey. It reports using that survey in direct engagement with more than 60 national policymakers. The accounts' narrative links it to targeted government engagement and ECLAG-letter work. These are statements from the same institution, not two independent confirmations of influence or adoption.
The [original European survey](http[local research file] pp3,7–8,20, identifies Economist Impact's role and February–March2023 fieldwork. It limits its population to retrospective accounts from 2,000 eighteen-year-olds across four countries. The questionnaire derived from the 2021 study; the original questionnaire/IRB record was not acquired. It expressly distinguishes expert advice from endorsement. The commissioning SOW, payment/funding code, draft changes and final signoff remain holder records. No Oak earmark to this survey is established.
Custody, boundaries and merge instructions
The packet contains 13 proposed nodes, 21 relationships, 13 source records and five parked holder-record leads. All new IDs use w3-oak-. The capture manifest stores exact URLs, response states, raw filenames, extracted-text filenames, sizes and SHA256 values. Reading extent is source-specific: the 128-page review was read for methods and production/review credits; the 83-page guidance for methodology, scope and named reviewers. Their scientific evidence bases were not audited.
The compressed review URL returned HTTP403 once. One official alternate filename yielded the report; the inaccessible and accessible files are not asserted byte-identical. An erroneous Oak team URL failed once; the indexed official team page supplied the legitimate substitute. Targeted grant-letter and Swiss Safe Futures searches did not yield the missing instruments. Unrelated Oak–Swiss Philanthropy Foundation collaborations do not establish the donor behind this particular agreement.
Keep the existing umbrella WeProtect node. Add Dutch and UK legal actors separately; do not turn every member into a subsidiary. The new specific Policy Board is a component of the old wp-boards grouping, not an alias for both boards. Do not automatically merge “Swiss Philanthropy” with a named foundation, hosted fund or Oak. Neither the internal subgrant nor the amendment produces additional external money by being mapped twice. The already retained 2024 comparative-account mismatch remains unresolved; this lane does not invent a financial trend.
The next discriminating records are concrete: named award letters; the 2021 Dutch-to-UK agreement and actual budget exception decisions; the Together for Girls amendment and replacement Swiss fund identifier; the review's tracked drafts and signoff; and the European survey SOW and cost code. No outreach, paid access, publication, automation or canonical-case change was performed.