For agents
Ask Vouch, do not scrape it
The site and the context service publish from one snapshot. The difference is who is asking. A person reads “unverified, last checked four hours ago” in the margin and discounts the row. A model flattens the row into a sentence, and the margin is the first thing to go. So the guarantee is not a field beside the data. It is the shape of the reply.
Presence survives staleness. Absence does not.
The obvious rule would be that a broken source answers nothing. It is wrong, and wrong in a direction that causes its own harm. A recall notice does not expire, so a recall we saw four hours ago is still a recall, and withholding it from the person about to buy the product would be the worse mistake.
I found nothing is a different claim, and it is the one that gets somebody hurt. A source is unverified here because it failed its contract, and the usual way to fail one is to come back with fewer rows than the baseline. Silence from a source that just lost a third of its records is not evidence of absence.
Same data, same query, opposite answers
Every source verified
RECALL 26692 conf=0.72 basis=brand+product src=cpsc COMMOWNER Pressure Washers Recalled Due to Serious Risk of Injury or Death from Shock and Electrocution Hazards; Imported by AZ Home Concept hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and, because the power cord is short, it may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards. do: Consumers should stop using the recalled pressure washers immediately and contact AZ Home Concept for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the pressure washer by cutting the unplugged power cord in half and send a photo of the destroyed power washer to pressurewasherrecall@outlook.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed recalled product. link: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/COMMOWNER-Pressure-Washers-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Shock-and-Electrocution-Hazards-Imported-by-AZ-Home-Concept matched: pressure washer commowner pressurewasher WITHHELD 6x matched on product-only at 0.30, below the 0.7 bar to assert SRC cpsc US CPSC | verified | confirmed 2026-08-20 10:47
NONE no recall matched, and every recall source is currently verified
The recall source fails its contract simulated
row count fell from 307 to 204, a 33.6% drop, limit 20.0%
STALE 1 of 1 source(s) not currently verified CAUTION 1 of 1 recall(s) come from a source we cannot currently vouch for (US CPSC). The notice itself does not expire, so it is reported with the time it was last confirmed rather than withheld. RECALL 26692 conf=0.72 basis=brand+product src=cpsc COMMOWNER Pressure Washers Recalled Due to Serious Risk of Injury or Death from Shock and Electrocution Hazards; Imported by AZ Home Concept hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and, because the power cord is short, it may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards. do: Consumers should stop using the recalled pressure washers immediately and contact AZ Home Concept for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the pressure washer by cutting the unplugged power cord in half and send a photo of the destroyed power washer to pressurewasherrecall@outlook.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed recalled product. link: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/COMMOWNER-Pressure-Washers-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Shock-and-Electrocution-Hazards-Imported-by-AZ-Home-Concept matched: pressure washer commowner pressurewasher WITHHELD 6x matched on product-only at 0.30, below the 0.7 bar to assert SRC cpsc US CPSC | unverified | confirmed 2026-08-20 10:47
REFUSED absence_unverifiable no recall matched, but this cannot be reported as "not recalled". US CPSC is not currently verified (row count fell from 307 to 204, a 33.6% drop, limit 20.0%). Absence is a claim about everything we did not find, so it is only reportable when every recall source is currently passing its contract, and the commonest way to fail one is to return fewer records than the baseline.
The second column is this snapshot edited in memory to show the rule, labelled everywhere it appears. It is not a live incident. The breach quoted is the shape of a real row-count cliff, which the incident log records happening.
Four tools, no credentials
npm run mcp serves these over MCP on stdio. The server reads a published snapshot and never scrapes, which is the same separation the site relies on: trust state is a property of a completed cycle, so the cycle publishes and everything else renders. Each description says what the result does not license, because that is the only thing a model reads before deciding what to do with it.
- recall_context
- Is this product recalled? Returns recalls we will assert, with the confidence and matched tokens behind each. A REFUSED line means you must not say the product is safe or unrecalled; quote it and call breakage_report.
- vouch_report
- What each source can currently be vouched for. Read CAN_REPORT_ABSENCE before telling anyone a product is NOT recalled; when false, absence is not a claim this data supports.
- breakage_report
- Why we are refusing, and whether calling again would help. Gives the open failure per source and a retry wait measured from repairs that actually ran there. Call this after a refusal instead of retrying: two of the four causes are never repaired, so retrying them changes nothing.
- quarantined_for
- Near misses: recalls that resembled this product but did not clear the bar, with why each was held back. These are NOT recalls of this product and must never be reported as though they were.