Evidence File — Will Sex Robots Reach Our Homes Before Humanoid Housekeepers?

Evidence file · published with the report

Primary documents

Claim-by-claim verification

Known limits

• It does not establish that every observation in the draft is true of the world. It establishes that each factual assertion matches the source retrieved for it, and that the source is identified.
• It is not an independent editorial review. The drafting agent cannot certify its own reporting; C01-C24 were checked by the same agent that produced the draft. Under the newsroom rule, an independent reviewer must reassess before publication.
• The two academic abstracts were read from publisher-deposited or index-held abstracts, not from full texts (both publishers refused automated access). Sample sizes and top-line findings are confirmed; nothing about method quality or effect beyond the abstract is asserted here.
• No interview was conducted. The AI disclosure in the draft remains accurate.

Provenance

Built by a deterministic converter from the REVIEWED Markdown draft ARTICLE-DRAFT.md sha256 2dc199a1cc2b1006786e2745d7988ec08c402e1b2124754def4afdbcec3c9bab (8823 bytes) and EVIDENCE-FILE.md sha256 36e2fc77798e5d48f00709dc377820dffce7994ba75f7788a466cb530320a99e. The drafting files were opened read-only and are unchanged by this step; the converter refuses to run if either digest has moved. Section headings were mapped to H2 and Markdown emphasis removed; no sentence was added, cut or rewritten. The reviewed draft carries a three-pass independent editorial review (an agent other than the drafter; BLOCKING ITEM: RESOLVED on these exact bytes) and a 37-assertion claim verifier with two negative controls. Nothing here is authorized for publication.

Produced under human editorial authority. Nothing in this file is published.

Revision 2026-11-05 — corporate-structure correction and source locators

Appended by COMPUTER on 2026-11-05 under the Commander's instruction to fix factual errors in the article text. S1 was re-fetched and read in full this run. The original rows above are unchanged; this block corrects one of them and resolves four dangling cross-references.

The correction

[Superseded 2026-11-06 — the paragraph that follows is wrong. The parent relationship was correct. It is retained unaltered as the record of what this file said; see the amendment below it.]

The earlier wording inverted the relationship. Intima LLC is not Realdoll's parent: Intima LLC is a Realbotix Corp subsidiary that manufactures the dolls, and Realdoll is the brand. S1 also distinguishes Intima LLC from Realbotix LLC, which builds the commercial humanoid robots — a distinction the article does not need but must not contradict. The source spells the entity “Intima LLC”; the company's own advisory-council announcement is published on intimaai.com, which is the form the article's source list uses.

Amendment 2026-11-06 — the paragraph above is superseded

Intima's own announcement of 6 October 2026, retrieved this run from intimaai.com, states that “Realdoll, a majority owned subsidiary of Intima.ai, today announced the formation of the Realdoll Responsible Intimacy Advisory Council” and quotes Sue Ennis as “president of Intima.ai, the parent company of Realdoll”. The parent relationship recorded in the paragraph above as erroneous was therefore correct, and the “Before” column of the table above is not a correction of an error but the original, accurate wording.

Both sources hold at once. Intima is the parent of Realdoll; Realdoll is a majority owned subsidiary of Intima.ai; and the SEXTECHGUIDE interview separately describes Intima LLC as a Realbotix Corp subsidiary that makes the dolls and is distinct from Realbotix LLC, which builds the commercial humanoid robots. The article body now states both relationships, each attributed to its own source (S1 and S9).

The erroneous wording above is retained deliberately and is not deleted, so that this file records what it previously asserted. The article's own fact-check revision note carries the same superseded wording for the same reason.

Row C05, superseded

Row C05 recorded “Sue Ennis described as ‘Realdoll president’” as PARTIAL and pointed to a section 3.1 that does not exist in this file. S1 does describe her as the brand's president — “Realdoll's new president has told SEXTECHGUIDE…” and “Ennis has quickly become the new public face of Realdoll” — so the description is VERIFIED. What was wrong was the parentage, which the article has now been corrected on. Amended 2026-11-06: the parentage was not wrong. See the Amendment above; the article now states both relationships, each attributed to its own source. C05 is therefore resolved, superseded by this block.

Dangling cross-references resolved

Rows C05, C12, C13 and C24 point to sections 3.1–3.4. No such sections exist; the references were left behind when the file was converted. Each is resolved here rather than by editing the original rows.

• C05 (was “see 3.1”). Resolved above: president VERIFIED; the parentage was correct, not corrected (amended 2026-11-06, see the Amendment above).
• C12 (was “see 3.2”). “Research-oriented model” is SUPPORTED but is the article's characterisation, not Unitree's wording. The article already flags it as a characterisation in its fact-check notes.
• C13 (was “see 3.3”). The stock-and-delivery caveat was UNVERIFIED on the retrieved page and the phrase does not appear in the article. Nothing in the published text depends on it.
• C24 (was “see 3.4”). “Elon Musk wants humanoid robots to become a mass-market product” had no retrieved source and the article does not use it. It is recorded here as a dropped claim, not a published one.

Source locators S3–S11 added

The Primary documents table above previously identified only S1 and S2, while the claims table cited S3–S10 by identifier. Those identifiers are now resolved to documents, with each source's independence stated: S3, S4, S5, S6, S9 and S11 are statements by the companies concerned; S7 and S8 are peer-reviewed articles read from abstracts only; S10 is journalism independent of the companies. The article's own Sources list cites S1–S11 and the numbers now agree.

What this revision does not do

• It does not re-run the quotation verifier. The corrected sentence introduces no new quotation; it paraphrases S1, which was re-read this run.
• It does not constitute the independent editorial review. The three-pass review recorded in Provenance covers the pre-correction bytes; a reviewer must reassess the corrected text before publication.