Our sources

We only publish numbers we can trace to a primary source: the original study, official statistics, or the organization's own reporting. Secondary retellings, influencer polls, and unattributed "studies show" claims are rejected at the fact-gate.

Primary sources currently cited

• Ace Week, "5 Defining Moments in Gray-Asexual History"; corroborated by the Dictionary.com Gender & Sexuality entry "demisexual" (2006)The primary artefact (the original AVEN forum thread, 8 February 2006, user sonofzeal) is not machine-fetchable. Two independent reputable secondaries reporting it were read directly: Ace Week ("On February 8, 2006, AVEN user sonofzeal coined the term demisexual") and Dictionary.com ("The term demisexual was coined in 2006 on the forums of The Asexual Visibility & Education Network (AVEN) by user sonofzeal"). The same forum/era attribution appears in the Wikipedia Demisexuality and Gray asexuality articles.
• AUREA (Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education and Advocacy), "Aromantic History"; corroborated by Ace Archive, artefact "Coining of the term 'aromantic'" (identities/aromantic collection) (2002)The primary artefact (the 2002 post by Yahoo-group user maxnova100 on "Haven for the Human Amoeba": "What would be an appropriate term for somebody who is not quite asexual but who dreads the concept of being in a 'relationship?' Aromantic (LOL)?") sits on a defunct Yahoo group and is not machine-fetchable. Two independent community-documentation sources reporting the same artefact were read directly: AUREA's Aromantic History article ("The earliest usage found of the term so far was in 2002"; AVEN orientation-poll usage quoted from 2005; "It isn't until 2008/2009, on AVEN at least, that the term appeared more often") and Ace Archive — a primary-document archive — which catalogues the same post as the first use of the term (2002, asexual message board, user maxnova100). No lexicographic or peer-reviewed source fixes a coinage date, hence medium, not high.
• Bisexual Resource Center, "Bi Info"; The Trevor Project, "Understanding Bisexuality" (quoting Robyn Ochs) (2026)Two organisational definition pages read directly: Bisexual Resource Center (bisexual as an umbrella term for people who recognise their potential for 'sexual and emotional attraction to more than one gender') and The Trevor Project (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality/), which quotes the Ochs definition verbatim and separately describes pansexual as attraction 'to people of any gender or to people regardless of their gender', noting that some people use the terms interchangeably. No number is involved; this is a definitional citation.
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment, news release "Cambridge Dictionary adds skibidi, delulu and tradwife" (2025)Publisher's own news release read directly, dated 18 Aug 2025: "skibidi, delulu, tradwife and broligarchy are among thousands of new English words, phrases and meanings that have been added to the Cambridge Dictionary". Corroborated by NPR (19 Aug 2025) and CNN (18 Aug 2025) reporting the same addition. The page carries no per-word definition and no spread narrative, so nothing beyond the fact of inclusion is approved.
• CBS News New York, "'Breadcrumbing:' A Practice That Leads To False Hope In Dating" (2017)Primary artefact read directly: dated news item, 2 February 2017, treating the term as established dating slang and quoting a community definition. This is an ATTESTATION FLOOR (the word demonstrably existed in general press by that date), NOT a coinage or first-use date. No lexicographic first-use record was obtainable: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breadcrumbing returns HTTP 403 to automated fetch, so no First Known Use could be read, and secondary write-ups contradict each other (early 2010s / mid-2010s / around 2016).
• Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR), credential page "Dietetic Technician, Registered (DTR) or Nutrition and Dietetics Technician, Registered (NDTR)" (2026)Credentialing body's own page read directly: both designations are presented as the same credential, holders of DTR may use NDTR instead, and CDR committee terminology now uses NDTR to refer to both. Corroborated on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics page https://www.eatright.org/become-an-ndtr. A credential name, not a statistic.
• Dictionary.com slang entry "delulu"; corroborated by the Merriam-Webster slang entry "delulu" (2014)Dictionary.com slang entry read directly: "The term delulu seems to have emerged from the Korean pop music (K-pop) fan community. As early as late 2013 and early 2014, members of this community often used the term delulu...", with the earliest quoted Twitter posts from January 2014, use inside K-pop fandom through the 2010s, and spread to broader online usage by the early 2020s, particularly through TikTok. No individual is named as originator anywhere on the page. Merriam-Webster's slang entry (https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/delulu) could not be fetched (HTTP 403); its indexed text gives the same picture — shortened from "delusional" with reduplicated -lu-, emerging in the early 2010s among K-pop fandom online as a rebuke of "stanning"/"shipping" seen as irrational, spreading beyond K-pop in the early 2020s, with the rhyming phrases "delulu is the solulu" ("delusion is the solution") and "may all your delulu come trululu". The figure relied on (the decade) is read directly on Dictionary.com, hence high.
• Dictionary.com slang entry "stashing"; corroborated by Refinery29 (13 Jan 2020), which credits "Metro UK writer Ellen Scott ... back in 2017" (2017)Lexicographic reference page read directly: "Stashing is credited to Ellen Scott in a column for the UK tabloid Metro in August 2017," with contemporaneous Aug 2017 / Aug 2018 usage instances. The Metro column itself was not machine-fetchable, so attribution rests on the dictionary entry plus one independent reputable secondary read directly (Refinery29, 13 Jan 2020: "We have Metro UK writer Ellen Scott to thank for coining this oh-so-useful dating term back in 2017") naming the same writer, outlet and year. Hence medium, not high.
• Dictionary.com slang entry "the ick" (2026)Read directly on the Dictionary.com slang entry: "The ick was rarely used as a slang dating term until the later 2010s, when it started to be discussed in articles about dating. The reality show Love Island seems to have helped popularize the term, as several cast members would explain what the term meant during episodes of the show. By the early 2020s, the term the ick became very popular on social media and as a result was profiled by mainstream media outlets." Corroborated by the Wikipedia article "The ick" (read directly): popularisation via a Love Island contestant in the 2017 series, TikTok list videos from 2020, citing GQ, USA Today and The Guardian.
• Dictionary.com slang entry "thirst trap" (2026)Lexicographic reference page read directly: "The name for the practice, though, appears on Twitter and Urban Dictionary by 2011, drawing on thirsty, slang for 'thirsting for attention,' and trap in the sense of 'lure.'" Corroborated by NPR, "'Thirst Trap' Enters The Lexicon" (17 Apr 2018, Neda Ulaby, quoting Merriam-Webster editor Peter Sokolowski; read via the KSUT public-radio copy of the NPR piece, https://www.ksut.org/arts-and-culture/2018-04-17/thirst-trap-enters-the-lexicon), which reports the term "began appearing on Twitter and Urban Dictionary around 2011". Wikipedia's article states that "its precise origins remain unclear" and names no coiner; Dictionary.com's browse entry gives "First recorded in 2010–15". No coiner claim is approved in either direction beyond "none is on record".
• Dictionary.com, Acronyms entry "DTR" (2026)Reference entry read directly: DTR = "define the relationship", described as an acronym "used in chat and texting" that "implies a critical point in a relationship in which one person wants clear answers from the other". The entry carries dated usage illustrations (earliest on the page: Bustle, September 2017) but makes NO coinage, first-use or origin statement. A definition, not a statistic.
• Dictionary.com, entry "bi-curious" ("First recorded in 1980–85; bi(sexual) + curious") (2026)Lexicographic entry read directly: "First recorded in 1980–85; bi(sexual) + curious". Personals-language origin corroborated by the Wiktionary entry, which carries a dated citation from a personal ad in The Register (Orange County, California), c. 1984 ("Bi curious M/F or cpls."), and by the Wikipedia article. The OED entry (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bi-curious_adj) is paywalled and could not be read (302 to an auth provider); secondary summaries report New Partridge / Oxford dating the term to 1990, so dictionaries DISAGREE about the decade. Medium, not high, for that reason.
• Dictionary.com, entry "body count"; corroborated by Wiktionary, entry "body count" (citing Merriam-Webster for a 1962 first use) (2026)Dictionary.com entry read directly: definition "the number of soldiers killed in a specific period or in a particular military action", first recorded 1965–70. Wiktionary read directly (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/body_count): etymology "coined by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War in the sense 'number of killed enemy combatants', in 1962 according to Merriam-Webster", with a 1968 Congressional-record quotation using the term. Merriam-Webster's own pages (dictionary and slang entries) returned HTTP 403 and are not relied on directly. The two lexicographic references disagree on the exact first year (1962 vs 1965–70), which is precisely why only the decade/era is approved.
• Donald Horton & R. Richard Wohl, "Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance", Psychiatry, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 215–229 (1956), DOI 10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 (1956)Bibliographic record read directly on the Crossref DOI registry (https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049): authors Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl; container-title Psychiatry; volume 19, issue 3; pages 215–229; published 1956. The publisher landing page (tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049) returns HTTP 403 to automated fetch and is not relied on; the registry record is corroborated by the PubMed record for the same article (PMID 13359569) and by its Semantic Scholar record. A publication date, not a survey statistic.
• Dorothy Tennov, "Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love", New York: Stein and Day, 1979 (LCCN 77020117; LC class BF575.L8 T46) (1979)Bibliographic date read on two library catalogue records for the first edition: Open Library (Stein and Day, 1979, LCCN 77020117, LC class BF575.L8 T46) and the Internet Archive record of the scanned first edition (https://archive.org/details/lovelimerence00tenn — Tennov, Dorothy; Stein and Day; New York; 1979; ISBN 0812823281). A publication date, not a survey statistic.
• Green's Dictionary of Slang, entry "lavender, adj."; corroborated by Wordorigins.org (David Wilton), big-list entry "lavender" (2026)Two lexicographic references read directly. Green's Dictionary of Slang defines lavender adj. as "a euphemism for homosexual and anything referring to homosexuality" (orig. US) with dated citations: 1870 UK ("The Ninety-Ninth Hussars", Songs for the Army), 1928 US (Mae West, Pleasure Man: "Lavender, maybe but violet never"), 1938 US (Walter Winchell's Broadway column). Wordorigins.org (https://www.wordorigins.org/big-list-entries/lavender): the association "isn't known for certain" in origin, "was clearly in place by 1919, but likely dates back further", citing the 1919 Newport naval investigation phrase "a dash of lavender", Harold Hersey's 1926 "The Lavender Cowboy" and a 1927 McGill student-paper poem on "lavender men".
• HuffPost Australia, "Micro-Cheating: What Is It And Does It Count?", by Emily Blatchford, quoting Melanie Schilling (2017)Dated publication record read directly on the HuffPost archive page (15 August 2017, Emily Blatchford, HuffPost Australia), carrying Schilling's definition — "a series of seemingly small actions that indicate a person is emotionally or physically focused on someone outside their relationship" — with secrecy named as the tell-tale sign. Anglophone spread corroborated by later dated coverage: Psychology Today, 26 Jan 2018 (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-digitally/201801/is-online-infidelity-just-micro-cheating); The Washington Post, 13 Mar 2018 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/gender-identity/why-micro-cheating-might-be-good-for-your-relationship/); later platform-era spread, The Washington Post, 26 Jun 2024 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/26/micro-cheating-tiktok-instagram/). NO first-coinage claim is approved: Wikipedia states only that the term was "apparently popularized" by Schilling, and unverified Urban Dictionary antecedents are not an acceptable source.
• International Documentary Association (IDA), contemporaneous Sundance festival report on the world premiere of "Catfish" (dir. Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman), Spotlight section (2010)Contemporaneous festival record read directly: IDA blog dated 23 January 2010 reports the world premiere public screening. September 2010 theatrical release and the 12 November 2012 MTV spin-off premiere corroborated on a Yahoo Entertainment ten-year retrospective. Merriam-Webster's entry could not be fetched (HTTP 403) and is not relied on for the figure.
• Loving More (nonprofit publisher of Loving More Magazine), issue 26: Zhahai Stewart, "What's all this NRE Stuff, Anyway? — Reflections on New Relationship Energy, fifteen years after coining the term" (2001)Publisher's own catalogue page for Loving More Magazine issue 26 read directly; the article subtitle states it reflects on NRE 'fifteen years after coining the term', authored by Zhahai Stewart. Corroborated by the Wikipedia article on new relationship energy citing Stewart and Cook (term originated in Zhahai Stewart's Usenet postings). The issue year (2001) comes from that secondary index, NOT from the publisher page — hence medium confidence, and hence no decade is approved for body text.
• Mark Peters, "How Tinder and OKCupid spawned a new genre of slang", The Boston Globe (Ideas) (2017)Primary attestation read directly on the publisher's page. The article defines the dating sense verbatim: "'Cushioning' occurs when you have a main squeeze, but just in case that doesn't work out, you keep one or more other people in the picture, either by texting or through the occasional rendezvous." Author is the paper's language columnist. Publication date 2017-06-01 taken from the publisher's own URL path (no date string in the fetched body — the single soft point in this entry). This is an attestation of USE by that date, not a first-use or coinage record: unlike stashing, no dictionary or corpus source names a coiner for cushioning, so the draft's "not established" framing on authorship is correct.
• Merriam-Webster, "We've updated the Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary with 690 New Words" (September 2023 update), reported by Yahoo News and Business Standard (2023)The Merriam-Webster pages (both the September 2023 new-words announcement and https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/what-is-a-thirst-trap) return HTTP 403 to automated fetch and were NOT read. The update is corroborated across independent reputable secondaries reporting the same primary announcement: Yahoo News, "Merriam-Webster Adds 690 New Definitions, Including 'Thirst Trap' and 'Chef's Kiss'" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/merriam-webster-adds-690-definitions-210056326.html); Business Standard, "Rizz, thirst trap, simp: Merriam-Webster adds 690 new words to dictionary" (https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/rizz-thirst-trap-simp-merriam-webster-adds-690-new-words-to-dictionary-123100300394_1.html); WWLP (https://www.wwlp.com/news/local-news/rizz-simp-thirst-trap-690-words-added-to-springfield-base-merriam-webster/). Hence medium.
• Merriam-Webster, "Word of the Year 2018" (pansexual among the listed words) (2018)The Merriam-Webster page blocks automated fetch (HTTP 403), so this is medium, not high. Corroborated across independent reputable secondaries reporting the same primary list: LGBTQ Nation, 'Pansexual became one of the most looked up words of 2018 after Janelle Monáe came out' (Dec 2018, https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/12/pansexual-became-one-looked-words-2018-janelle-monae-came/); Out, '2018 Was the Year of the Pansexual' (21 Dec 2018, https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2018/12/21/2018-was-year-pansexual); GBH, "Merriam-Webster's Top Words Of 2018" (https://www.wgbh.org/lifestyle/2019-01-01/merriam-websters-top-words-of-2018).
• Noah B. Epstein, "Morals Clauses: Past, Present and Future", NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, vol. 5 no. 1 (2016)Law-review article read directly: Universal Studios began including morals clauses in all of its talent contracts around 1921, in the fallout from the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle case, as pre-emptive protection against reputational damage from contracted talent's personal conduct; the practice spread with the exclusive-contract star system. PDF of the same article: https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-5-No-1_3_Epstein_MoralsClauses.pdf
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entries "courtship" and "court" (n., v.) (2026)Two lexicographic reference pages read directly. "courtship" (n.): 1570s "behavior of a courtier", from court + -ship; 1590s "the wooing of a woman ... with intention of winning her affection and ultimately her consent to marriage"; 1830s "a period during which a couple mutually develops a romantic relationship with a view to marriage". "court" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/court): noun, late 12c., from Old French cort, Latin cortem/cohors "enclosed yard" (com + hort-); senses "formal assembly held by a sovereign", "palace, residence of a sovereign" (c.1200), "enclosed space connected with building(s)" (early 14c.), "tribunal for judicial investigation" (c.1300); verb, 1570s, "to endeavor to gain the favor of by amorous attention", "solicit, seek to win or attract", from the noun. An etymology, not a statistic about people.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entries "date" (n.3) and "date" (v.2) (2026)Lexicographic reference page read directly: date (n.3) "liaison at a particular time, by prearrangement" 1885, from the earlier "appointment" sense; romantic sense by the 1890s; "person one has a date with" by 1900. date (v.2) "have a romantic liaison" by 1903, from the noun.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entries "exclusive" and "exclude" (2026)Two etymology entries read directly. "exclusive": mid-15c. "so as to exclude"; 1560s "that excludes"; from Medieval Latin exclusivus, pp. of excludere; monopoly / exclusive-rights sense by the 1760s; "unwilling to admit outsiders" (clubs, social circles) by 1822; exclusiveness 1730, exclusivity 1926. "exclude" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclude): mid-14c., from Latin excludere "to shut out, hinder", ex- "out" + claudere "to close, shut". An etymology, not a statistic about people.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entries "infatuate" / "infatuation", citing Late Latin infatuationem and Century Dictionary (2026)Etymological reference page read directly: infatuate v. attested 1530s ('turn to foolishness, frustrate by making foolish'), sense 'inspire a foolish passion beyond control of reason' 1620s; infatuation n. 1640s. Roots in- + fatuus 'foolish'.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "asexual" (2026)Etymological reference page read directly: asexual (adj.) 1829, biology, "having no sex or sexual system", hybrid from a- "not" + sexual; sense "wanting sexuality, being of or referring to neither sex" 1896; asexuality (n.) 1853, "condition of being asexual", originally in biology.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "icky" (2026)Etymonline entry read directly via https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=icky (the canonical /word/icky URL redirect-loops for automated fetch): icky 1935, American English, probably from icky-boo (c. 1920) "sickly, nauseated", probably a baby-talk elaboration of sick; originally a swing-lover's term for over-sentimental jazz; general sense "sticky and repulsive" from 1938; noun "person with conventional taste in jazz" 1937. Corroborated by lexicographer Sue Butler (Macquarie Dictionary), read directly (https://www.suebutler.com.au/new-words/2021/11/8/the-ick): "icky was a word of the jazz scene in America in the 1930s"; she notes the OED calls the ultimate origin uncertain.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "pansexual" (1972)Etymology entry read directly: sense "not limited in sexual choice" recorded by 1972.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "platonic"; corroborated by Wikipedia, "Platonic love" (2026)Etymonline read directly: "free of sensual desire" (1630s, in Platonic love ... translating Latin Amor platonicus), plus a quoted 1867 G. H. Lewes passage on the later softening of the sense. Wikipedia, "Platonic love" (read directly): "the term 'platonic love' entered the English language in the 1630s, during a period when Neoplatonism was fashionable among European royalty." Both readings agree on the century; only the century is approved.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "sapient" (2026)Reference page read directly: sapient from Latin sapiens, present participle of sapere "to taste, have taste", of persons "to have discernment, be wise"; nominative sapiens "sensible; shrewd, knowing, discrete"; PIE root *sep- "to taste, perceive". Etymonline carries NO entry for sapiosexual itself — only the root is sourced here. An etymology, not a statistic; no number reaches the reader.
• Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline), entry "stash" (2026)Etymology entry read directly: verb "to conceal, hide," 1797, criminals' slang, origin unknown, perhaps suggested by stow and cache; noun "hoard, cache" 1914; drug sense by 1942.
• Open Library bibliographic record for Joshua Harris, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye", Multnomah (first published 1997); movement framing corroborated in mainstream coverage (NPR, Slate) (1997)Bibliographic record read directly via the Open Library search API (https://openlibrary.org/search.json?q=i+kissed+dating+goodbye): title "I Kissed Dating Goodbye", author Joshua Harris, first_publish_year 1997, publishers Multnomah / Multnomah Books / Multnomah Publishers, revised edition 2003. The book's content — courtship with parental blessing and involvement presented as a superior model to dating — and its status as the movement's best-known vehicle are corroborated across reputable secondaries (NPR coverage of Harris, 2018-2019; Slate, 2016). No scholarly page stating the movement's decade could be fetched directly (Taylor & Francis returned HTTP 403), hence medium rather than high.
• Salvador Minuchin, "Families and Family Therapy", Harvard University Press (1974)Primary publication record (Harvard University Press catalogue page: 1974, 268 pp.). Concept of enmeshment/disengagement as the two ends of a boundary-permeability continuum corroborated in academic literature citing Minuchin (1974).
• Sotheby's, "Latest Banksy Artwork 'Love is in the Bin' Created Live at Auction" (2018)The auction house's own article read directly: "Seconds after the hammer fell, part of the canvas passed through a hidden shredder, and in the process of 'destroying' the artwork, a new one was created"; the shredder was concealed in a large Victorian-style "artist's frame", and the resulting work was authenticated by Pest Control and retitled "Love is in the Bin" (2018). Corroborated by NPR (2021) and CBS News reporting on the later resale.
• StatPearls (NCBI Bookshelf), "Deep Tendon Reflexes", NBK531502 (2026)Peer-reviewed clinical reference read via NCBI Bookshelf: DTR used as the standard abbreviation for deep tendon reflexes in the neurological examination, with the chapter noting that the more accurate name is the muscle stretch reflex (MSR). Corroborated by StatPearls "Physiology, Deep Tendon Reflexes" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562238/). A terminology fact, not a statistic.
• TIME, Nolan Feeney, "OkCupid Rolling Out New Gender and Sexual Orientation Identity Options"; corroborated by NPR, "Sapiosexual Seeks Same: A New Lexicon Enters Online Dating Mainstream" (Dec 2014) and by PBS NewsHour / HuffPost coverage of the same rollout (2014)TIME article (17 November 2014) read directly: the expanded orientation choices included "asexual, queer, questioning, pansexual, and sapiosexual (where intelligence is the most important factor in attraction)". OkCupid made no formal public announcement, so no company primary exists; the CNN report returned HTTP 451 and the NPR member-station copy HTTP 403, and neither is relied on for the figure. Corroboration therefore rests on ≥2 independent reputable outlets reporting the same rollout → medium.
• Vice, "Introducing 'Banksying' — the Latest Toxic Dating Trend"; corroborated by Out.com and The Tab, both carrying the same sense in the same weeks (2025)Three dated trend-press pages read directly: Vice (13 July 2025), The Tab (15 July 2025, https://thetab.com/2025/07/15/banksying-inside-the-new-dating-trend-thats-even-worse-than-ghosting), Out.com (21 July 2025, https://www.out.com/relationships/what-is-banksying-the-toxic-dating-trend). All three define the term in the same sense (a partner quietly disengaging and preparing an exit while the relationship looks normal); none names a coiner. No lexicographic entry exists: the Cambridge Dictionary new-words blog returned HTTP 403 and its published new-word lists for the period do not carry the term. This is an attestation of USE by that period, not a coinage record.
• Wikipedia, "Asexual Visibility and Education Network"; corroborated by AVEN's own site (copyright line "2001–2026") and by Stonewall UK's AVEN profile (2001)AVEN's own overview page (https://www.asexuality.org/?q=overview.html) was read directly but does not state a founding year — only a 2001–2026 copyright line. Founding date (10 March 2001) and founder (David Jay) read on Wikipedia and corroborated across independent reputable secondaries (Stonewall UK AVEN profile; UNISON LGBT History Month post). No machine-fetchable primary founding document, hence medium.
• Wikipedia, "Pansexual flag" (citing Mashable 2014, USA Today 2021, KTVU 2021, Gay Times 2021); corroborated by INTO, "The History of the Pansexual Pride Flag" (2010)No primary artefact is machine-fetchable (the originating Tumblr post and the designer's 2013 'confession time' follow-up are not retrievable). Reference pages consulted: Wikipedia, read directly (flag 'originally posted in 2010 on an anonymous Tumblr account', authorship later confirmed by Jasper V.; magenta = attraction to women, yellow = attraction to non-binary people, cyan = attraction to men), and INTO's flag history. Coverage also records a competing attribution (Evie Varney), so the designer is reported as contested, not asserted.
• Wikipedia, "Platonic love"; corroborated by the Online Etymology Dictionary entry "platonic" ("a Renaissance notion ... based on Plato's writings in 'Symposium'") (2026)No fetchable primary: Ficino's Symposium commentary (De amore) and his letter to Alamanno Donati were not read in a scholarly edition, and Merriam-Webster's word-history page returns HTTP 403. Attribution rests on two reputable secondaries read directly — Wikipedia's "Platonic love" (Ficino coined amor platonicus in the 15th century, reinterpreting the Symposium) and Etymonline's characterisation of the sense as a Renaissance notion translating Amor platonicus. Hence medium.
• Wikipedia, "The Platonick Lovers" (Caroline-era play by Sir William Davenant, acted by the King's Men at Blackfriars); corroborated by Wikipedia, "Platonic love" (Neoplatonism fashionable among royalty) (2026)Two reputable secondaries read: the play is a Caroline-era tragicomedy/satire that both flatters and ridicules the fashion for Platonic affections in the circle of Queen Henrietta Maria (licensed 16 Nov 1635 by the Master of the Revels, printed 1636); the Wikipedia "Platonic love" article independently records the court fashion for Neoplatonism among royalty. The play text and a scholarly edition were not read directly, so medium.
• Wiktionary entry "thirst trap" (dated quotation set); NPR, "'Thirst Trap' Enters The Lexicon" (2018)Wiktionary citation set read directly: dated quotations from Valeriya Safronova, The New York Times (2017); Taylor Lorenz, The Atlantic (2018); Ciara Gaffney, The Guardian (2020); Alaina Demopoulos, The Guardian (2024). Independently corroborated by the NPR segment of 17 April 2018 (read via the KSUT public-radio copy, https://www.ksut.org/arts-and-culture/2018-04-17/thirst-trap-enters-the-lexicon), which reports the phrase entering the general lexicon and quotes a Merriam-Webster editor. Medium rather than high because the quotation set is a wiki compilation and the individual NYT/Atlantic pages were not fetched; the broadcast attestation was read directly.
• Wiktionary, entry "body count" (sexual sense, earliest quotation 2010); Green's Dictionary of Slang search results for "body count" (2026)Read directly. Wiktionary carries the sense ("the total number of sexual partners of a given individual") with a vague 'circa 2006 or later' label and its earliest quotation from 2010 (James Ellroy); no coiner, community or publication is named. Green's Dictionary of Slang search (https://greensdictofslang.com/search/basic?q=body+count) returns only unrelated senses of the compound ("those people who are present"; the prison muster exclamation) — no sexual-sense headword with dated citations. No first-attestation study exists in what was read.
• wolfieboy, LiveJournal entry "Stoked on sapiosexuality" (primary artefact, publicly dated) (2002)Primary artefact fetched and read directly: entry dated 15 March 2002, containing the sentence "I invented this term while on too little sleep driving up from SF in the summer of '98." The record therefore documents (a) a named venue and a named user, (b) a dated public use at the turn of the 2000s, (c) a 1998 coinage date that is the coiner's own self-report, not independent documentation. Attribution to this user is corroborated on Know Your Meme and the LGBTQIA+ Wiki.
• Wordorigins.org (David Wilton), big-list entry "lavender"; Green's Dictionary of Slang ("lavender" adj./n. entries); Wiktionary, entry "lavender marriage" (2026)Read directly across three references. Wordorigins defines lavender marriage ("a companionate, and often celebrity, marriage of convenience where one or both partners are gay") but supplies no citation or date for the compound, while dating the colour sense in detail. Green's Dictionary of Slang carries lavender adj. and lavender n. with dated citations, but not the compound as a dated headword. Wiktionary's only quotation is from The New York Times, 2020. Wikipedia's article states that "lavender's association with homosexuality dates to the 1920s" and separately that the phrase "appears in print at least as early as 1991" — decades apart, and Wikipedia is not an acceptable primary source here in any case.
• Yahoo Entertainment ten-year retrospective on "Catfish", reporting the Boston Globe's tracing of the anecdote to fiction writers Henry Nevinson and Charles Marriott (2020)Read directly on the retrospective, which cites the Boston Globe debunk. Recorded ONLY to license the draft's negative framing ("treat as folklore, not an established fact"). The 1913 date and the writers' names must NOT appear in body text.

What we rejected, and why

This list matters as much as the one above. Dating vocabulary attracts confident origin stories — a coiner, a first printed use, a year — that repeat across trend pieces and trace back to nothing. Claims we could not follow to a primary record are named here instead of being printed as fact anywhere on this site.

• most ENM arrangements are not polyamorous — Unsourced prevalence claim about how many real arrangements fall each way. No primary source (Pew / NCFMR / peer-reviewed) establishes the distribution of ENM sub-forms; content-spec §0 forbids quantified reach claims ("безцифрово"). Quantifier 'most' is a statistic without a digit.
• the confusion between them is the single most common reason people look the term up — Superlative frequency claim about search intent, presented as fact. No published SERP/intent study cited and nothing in approved[]. Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно — a ranked "most common" is a statistic without a digit.
• Most arrangements described as ENM come with more explicit agreements than a default monogamous one, not fewer. — "Most … more than" is a quantified empirical comparison between two populations, stated as fact. Would require a named survey or peer-reviewed source with year and URL; none supplied. Same class as poly-enm-most.
• plenty of ENM arrangements are not polyamorous — Same shape as precedent poly-enm-most: a prevalence quantifier ('plenty') applied to real arrangements. Consistency across pages requires the same treatment.
• Three scenes carry most of the usage. — Quantified claim about how a word's usage is distributed, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence behind it (no OED citation record, Ngram or corpus study read). Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно. Same class as enm-intent-superlative ('most common'). Aggravating: the draft then adds "Fourth, and least flattering", so the stated count is internally false as well.
• Someone uses the word retrospectively, which is where it appears most often — Superlative frequency claim about where a word most often appears in real usage. Requires corpus/citation evidence; none exists in approved[]. Identical shape to the already-rejected 'single most common reason people look the term up'.
• Three scenes carry most of the usage. — Verbatim repeat of the sentence already rejected on /feelings/infatuation/ (infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage): an unsourced share-of-usage claim stated as fact. No corpus, Ngram or citation record supports it; content-spec §0 requires обсяг вжитку описувати якісно.
• Four neighbouring words absorb most of the confusion. — Another 'most of X' distribution claim, this time about where reader confusion lands. Nothing in approved[] measures it; same class as the ENM and infatuation rejections.
• Tennov built the term from questionnaires and interviews with roughly 500 self-selected respondents — The ~500 figure circulates in secondaries (Wikipedia, Psychology Today, simplypsychology) with varying descriptions of the sample and was not read on the primary text. Does not meet the high or medium bar, and the site is безцифровий anyway.
• The four stages of limerence — infatuation, crystallisation, deterioration, resolution — No attribution in Tennov (1979) and none in peer-reviewed literature; the sequence originates in popular and coaching content.
• Unlike most app-era coinages, it did not come from a community and then get picked up by media; it went the other way. — 'Most app-era coinages' is a prevalence claim about how the majority of a whole vocabulary originated, stated as fact. No lexicographic or corpus study establishes that distribution; same class as poly-enm-most and infatuation-retrospective-most-often — a statistic without a digit. Content-spec §0 (безцифрово) applies.
• Financial schemes, boredom, loneliness, harassment and experiments with a different presentation of self are all documented reasons people have given — "Documented" asserts a body of evidence while naming no document — the 'studies show' shape. Nothing in approved[] covers motive research, and a motive taxonomy would need a named study with year and URL. It also drifts towards explaining why people behave as they do, which the glossary's boundary rules keep off the page.
• Three scenes carry most of the everyday usage. — Third occurrence of an already-rejected pattern (infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage, limerence-three-scenes-most-usage): a count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• The pair that generates the most searches is demisexual and asexual. — Superlative search-volume claim stated to the reader as fact. Keyword-tool volumes are not a published source with methodology, year and URL, and §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy. Same class as enm-intent-superlative.
• Most confusion comes from mixing two different questions. — Prevalence quantifier ('most') applied to real readers' confusion, with no study behind it. Precedent poly-enm-most / enm-agreements-most / limerence-four-words-most-confusion.
• and the part most listicles skip — Quantified claim about competitor content ('most listicles'), stated as fact, with no citable survey of the SERP. Also editorialising rather than dictionary register.
• the main gathering point for that vocabulary at the time — Superlative ranking of one forum against all other venues, stated as fact. The sources establish AVEN as where the term was coined, not that it was the single main gathering point. Precedent: unsourced superlatives are rejected (enm-intent-superlative).
• The label arrives after the pattern, which is a common route into ace-spectrum vocabulary. — Prevalence claim about how people arrive at an identity label ('a common route'), presented as fact about a population; no cited study of ace-spectrum identification pathways. Aggravated by the §0 identity rule: не пояснювати, «чому людина такою стала».
• Enjoying closeness before sex is common and is not what the word marks. — 'is common' is a prevalence statement about the general population without a source. Same class as 'plenty' (enm-faq-plenty). The definitional point survives without it.
• The two are often reported independently. (libido vs demisexual attraction) — An empirical co-occurrence claim ('often reported independently') that reads as a summary of research, with no study named — the 'studies show' shape without the phrase. The preceding sentence already draws the boundary.
• Individual authorship is not established. Community coinages of this kind rarely have a single documented inventor, and entries that name one are supplying detail the record does not support. — Not a number, but a factual assertion contradicted by the record: the coinage is documented to a named AVEN forum user on a dated thread (Ace Week; Dictionary.com — see approved id demisexual-origin-aven-mid-2000s). The draft would tell readers that accurate competitor entries are inventing detail. Also contains an unsourced generalisation about coinages ('rarely have a single documented inventor').
• Most usage of the word turns on one of these two, not on the act itself. — Unsourced quantified claim about how real-world usage is distributed. No corpus, dictionary citation record or peer-reviewed study measured it, and nothing in approved[] covers it. Direct precedents: poly-enm-most, enm-intent-superlative, infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage, demisexual-most-confusion — 'most' is a statistic without a digit, and §0 requires обсяг вжитку описувати якісно.
• Two features recur wherever the term is used. — Universal claim ('wherever') about all attested usage of the term, stated as fact. Softer than 'most', same class: an unmeasured statement about the distribution of usage with no corpus behind it.
• through the relationship-advice press of the late 2010s, in a run of articles quoting practising relationship psychologists, first in Australian outlets — The era itself is verified (approved: micro-cheating-origin-late-2010s), but the attribution is not: an anonymous plural of 'practising relationship psychologists' assigns a professional credential no source page supports — HuffPost Australia (2017) calls its single named source a dating expert. §0 п.3 requires naming the source where it is known, and invented credentials are a hard product ban.
• spread through British and American lifestyle press and dating-app blogs in the late 2010s — A dated origin claim carrying a decade, shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence. Every number on this site must trace to approved_stats.json (§0; fact-gate). At draft time it traced to nothing.
• The individual who first used the word in this sense is not established. Lifestyle outlets that popularised it did not credit a source, and later write-ups cite each other. — Factually wrong, and wrong in the direction the spec cares about. §0 п.3: «Де відомо — називаємо джерело» — a named attribution exists (Dictionary.com slang entry: "Stashing is credited to Ellen Scott in a column for the UK tabloid Metro in August 2017"; Refinery29, 13 Jan 2020, independently credits the same writer, outlet and year). Asserting non-attribution as fact is itself an unsourced claim about the record. Identical to demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished.
• The most common synonym is pocketing — Superlative frequency claim about vocabulary use, presented as fact. Identical class to enm-intent-superlative and demisexual-most-searches-pair. No corpus or lexicographic frequency source cited.
• Pocketing and stashing are generally treated as interchangeable rather than as distinct terms. — 'Generally' is a prevalence quantifier over an unmeasured body of writing — a statistic without a digit, same shape as enm-faq-plenty and demisexual-closeness-is-common.
• The closest neighbour is pocketing, which most writers treat as an outright synonym. — 'Most writers' quantifies an unmeasured population. Precedent: poly-enm-most, enm-agreements-most, demisexual-most-confusion.
• This is the scene writers most often use when contrasting the word with a soft launch. — Superlative frequency claim about how a term is written about. Unmeasurable without a corpus study; nothing in approved[]. Same class as infatuation-retrospective-most-often and micro-cheating-most-usage.
• the word appears in online advice writing and community definition lists in the mid-2010s … What is documented is the route — Dated origin claim asserted as documented, then undercut two sentences later ("That timing is approximate and widely repeated rather than precisely sourced"). Same shape as catfish-motives-documented and stashing-origin-unsourced-era. The earliest attestation verifiable on a primary page is 2017 (The Boston Globe, Mark Peters); nothing establishes advice writing or community definition lists earlier.
• the label is contested more often than most app-era words / The label is contested more than most — Ranked comparative frequency claim across an unnamed peer set of terms, stated as fact and repeated twice. No corpus, usage study or named survey. Identical class to enm-intent-superlative and stashing-most-writers-synonym.
• Cushioning usually involves breadcrumbing; breadcrumbing often has nothing to do with a reserve. — "Usually" / "often" are prevalence quantifiers applied to real cases of two behaviours. Same class as poly-enm-most, enm-faq-plenty, stashing-generally-interchangeable; no source could establish the overlap rate.
• contact most people would call an affair — "Most people" is an unsourced claim about majority moral opinion. Would need a named survey with published methodology (Pew / YouGov / peer-reviewed); nothing in approved[].
• cushioning has stayed mainly a noun-and-gerund pair. To cushion someone is rare — Corpus-frequency claim about which grammatical forms occur, presented as fact. Establishing it needs a corpus (COCA / Google Books / OED citation set); none consulted.
• the word is in steady use in dating writing, though it competes with older vocabulary for the same behaviour and is applied less consistently than its neighbours — Second ranked comparison against unnamed neighbouring terms, plus an unmeasured usage-volume assertion ("steady use"). Same class as cushioning-contested-more-than-most.
• Two features recur in every usage. — Universal quantifier over all recorded usage, unverifiable without a corpus. Same class as micro-cheating-two-features-universal ('wherever the term is used').
• the far more common technical senses of the same word … Those are the dominant meanings of the English word — ALLOWED WITH A CAVEAT, not a blocker. Comparative usage-volume statement, but qualitative (no digit, no rank over a named peer set) and it performs exactly the homonymy removal §0 ("пастка обсягу") requires of this entry. Logged so the precedent is explicit rather than silent.
• In current usage that sentence is not a contradiction, and it is one of the most common uses of the word. — Superlative frequency claim about how a word is used, stated as fact, with no corpus or citation record. Direct precedents: enm-intent-superlative, stashing-scene-most-often, demisexual-most-searches-pair. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Plenty of relationships never use the word, moving from dating straight to a label or to living together. — Prevalence quantifier ('plenty') applied to real relationships — verbatim the shape rejected as enm-faq-plenty. No source measures how many couples use the term.
• Four ordinary sentences, as illustrations of usage rather than instructions: — The site is безцифровий: a printed count in body copy has to trace to approved_stats.json, and this one traces to nothing. Aggravated by internal inconsistency — the very next paragraph opens "A fifth use runs the other direction", so the stated count is false on the page itself (same aggravation recorded for infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage).
• Many people who are dating exclusively still say single because no label has been used, while others treat exclusivity as the point they stop describing themselves that way. — 'Many people' is a prevalence quantifier about real self-description, with no survey behind it. Class of poly-enm-most / enm-faq-plenty / demisexual-closeness-is-common.
• People routinely describe themselves as exclusive but not officially together, meaning the rule is set and the title is not. — 'Routinely' quantifies how often people say something — an unmeasured frequency claim about a population, presented as fact. Same class as 'often'/'generally' rejections (demisexual-libido-independent, stashing-generally-interchangeable).
• The titles usually imply exclusivity, but exclusivity does not automatically produce the titles. Many couples pass through a period of being exclusive without using either word, and some never adopt the titles at all. — Two unsourced quantifiers about real couples: 'usually' (how the titles are read) and 'Many couples … some never'. The definitional contrast survives without either; §0 bans quantified claims about behaviour.
• Couples commonly become exclusive first and describe themselves as monogamous later, if ever. — 'Commonly' is a prevalence claim about the sequence in which real couples adopt vocabulary — no source. Precedent demisexual-common-route.
• The second frequent swap is *exclusive* for *official*. — 'Frequent' asserts a measured rate of confusion with nothing behind it. Softer than 'most', same class (limerence-four-words-most-confusion, demisexual-most-confusion).
• A situationship … is often described as the absence of exclusivity, but the more precise contrast is the absence of any stated agreement at all. — 'Often described' is an unmeasured frequency claim about how a neighbouring term is written about. Same class as stashing-scene-most-often. (The situationship handling itself is compliant: mentioned for contrast, not expanded, not linked — §0 network boundary.)
• The word entered English from Latin *excludere*, "to shut out," and for centuries did its work in commercial and social senses: exclusive rights, exclusive membership. — Correct in substance but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence — at draft time it traced to nothing, and 'for centuries' is a temporal quantity. §0 п.3 requires the source to be named where the origin is known; the fact-gate requires the claim to sit in approved_stats.json.
• no single publication, community, or platform can be credited with coining it — The neighbouring clause ('The precise decade … is not established') is exactly what §0 п.3 prescribes and stands. This clause goes further: it asserts as fact that no coiner CAN be credited — a universal claim about the whole record, of the kind already rejected twice when it turned out to be wrong (demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established). No first-attestation study was read here either way.
• Legally and on any form, yes: exclusive is not a marital status. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. 'Legally and on any form' is a universal legal-administrative assertion with no statute or form cited; the glossary has no legal remit. The point survives as a statement about the word.
• Search interest in the term has been climbing rather than fading, which is why it is marked here as rising rather than current. / the term is being looked up more often than before — A trend claim about measured search demand, stated to the reader as fact twice, resting only on an internal keyword tool (pool note: +196%). Keyword-tool trend data is not a published source with methodology, year and URL; §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy and the site is безцифровий. Same class as demisexual-most-searches-pair. Aggravated by §2's own instruction for this page: «зростання попиту не привід писати про людей як про явище».
• Three scenes carry most of the everyday usage. — Fourth verbatim occurrence of a pattern already rejected on infatuation, limerence and demisexual: a count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Most confusion comes from treating a set of neighbouring words as points on one scale of certainty, when they answer different questions. — Prevalence quantifier ('most') applied to readers' confusion, with no study behind it. Direct precedents: demisexual-most-confusion, limerence-four-words-most-confusion.
• The pair that generates the most searches is bicurious and bisexual. — Verbatim shape of the already-rejected demisexual-most-searches-pair: a superlative search-volume claim stated as fact, resting on keyword-tool data that is not a published source with methodology, year and URL.
• and the part most listicles skip — Quantified claim about competitor content, stated as fact, with no citable survey of the SERP. Precedent: demisexual-most-listicles-skip. Also editorialising rather than dictionary register.
• An individual coiner is not established, and no single publication or platform can be credited with introducing it. Entries that name a specific inventor or a first documented use are supplying detail the record does not support. — The 'first documented use' half is contradicted by the lexicographic record: Dictionary.com dates the word to 1980–85 (read directly), Wiktionary carries a dated c.1984 personal-ad citation from The Register (Orange County, California), and secondary summaries report New Partridge / Oxford dating it to 1990 — dated first attestations exist and dictionaries merely disagree on the decade. Telling readers that entries naming one are inventing detail is itself an unsourced claim about the record. Identical to demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established and exclusive-no-coiner-universal.
• It appears in English-language personal ads and, later, in early online personals and chat rooms, where short labels did a lot of work in very little space. — An origin claim shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence. §0 п.3 requires naming the source where the origin is known, and the fact-gate requires every origin/era claim to trace to approved_stats.json. Same shape as stashing-origin-unsourced-era and exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft at draft time.
• No clinical manual contains the term. — An absolute negative about the whole body of clinical nosology, stated as fact, with no manual checked or cited. The intent (§0 identity rule: не як діагноз) is right; the evidentiary form is not — the site cannot verify the absence of a word from every clinical manual.
• Both views circulate among people who use the vocabulary daily. — ADVISORY. 'Daily' quantifies how often an unnamed population uses the vocabulary, with nothing measuring it. Softer than 'most', same family as 'generally' (stashing-generally-interchangeable). The sentence works without the frequency.
• It thinned out across the twentieth century as "dating" took over — a newer word, built around the private outing rather than the family-approved suit. — A century-scale usage-decline claim stated as fact and shipped with statsUsed: []. Establishing that a word 'thinned out' requires a corpus (Google Books Ngram, COCA, OED citation density); none was consulted and nothing in approved[] measures usage volume for courting. Same class as cushioning-to-cushion-is-rare and stashing-origin-unsourced-era: an era-bearing claim with no approved_stats entry behind it.
• The word fell out of ordinary use for much of the twentieth century and returned as a self-aware borrowing. — The same corpus-frequency claim as courting-thinned-out-20c, restated in the FAQ with a quantified span ('for much of the twentieth century'). No frequency source read; §0 requires обсяг вжитку описувати якісно, and era-bearing claims require an approved_stats entry.
• The verb traces to the royal court. To *pay court* to someone was to attend on them and seek their favour, borrowed into English from French usage … *Courtship* as the name for the pre-marriage period is old and well attested in English writing. — Correct in substance and now approvable (court-verb-romantic-sense-etymology), but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence, and 'well attested in English writing' is an evidentiary assertion with no citation — the 'studies show' shape in lexicographic dress. §0 п.3: де відомо — називаємо джерело.
• One is the Christian courtship movement in American evangelical publishing in the 1990s, which promoted courting as a deliberate alternative to dating, typically with family involvement and marriage as the explicit goal. — A decade-bearing origin claim shipped with statsUsed: [] and with the source left anonymous ('American evangelical publishing'). Era claims on this site require an approved_stats entry and a named source in-sentence (§0 п.3). Precedents: stashing-origin-unsourced-era, cushioning-mid-2010s, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced.
• A court of law is a third, unrelated branch of the same root. — Factual error against the source now in approved[] (court-verb-romantic-sense-etymology): per Etymonline the judicial sense ('tribunal for judicial investigation', c.1300) descends from the same noun *court* as the sovereign's court, so it is a related branch of the same word, not an unrelated one. Not a number, but a stated fact contradicted by the record — handled like demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished and stashing-coiner-not-established.
• "usually also signalling a slower or more deliberate pace than the friend assumed"; "It appears in dating talk and, more often, in business and sports writing"; "often slightly playful"; "Speakers now often use it precisely because it sounds dated"; "Current usage has largely dropped the gendered direction"; "the stated goal is often a committed relationship rather than marriage specifically" — Six unsourced quantifiers over real usage and speaker intent ('usually', 'more often', 'often' ×3, 'largely') — statistics without digits. Direct precedents: cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing, stashing-generally-interchangeable, micro-cheating-most-usage, exclusive-faq-routinely-describe. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Current usage is symmetrical enough that dictionaries and speakers both apply it in either direction. — Appeal to an unnamed body of authority ('dictionaries') to carry a factual claim — the 'studies show' shape in lexicographic dress. No dictionary is named and nothing in approved[] covers gendered usage; the nearest verifiable source (Etymonline) in fact preserves the gendered wording in the historical sense, so the appeal cuts against its own record.
• "usually marriage or a committed partnership" (definition, directAnswer, FAQ "What is courting vs dating?") — ALLOWED, logged for precedent. 'Usually' here hedges the sense of the word, not the behaviour of a population: it states what the declared goal normally is within the term's meaning, and it matches the lexicographic record now in approved[] (courtship: 'with a view to marriage'). Distinguish from cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing, which quantified real cases.
• The revival has two distinguishable sources. — ALLOWED WITH A CAVEAT. The count is structural — the section then delivers both strands — rather than a measured share, and the second strand (short-video and dating-app speech) is exactly the qualitative form §0 permits («термін поширився через короткі відео»). But 'has two' reads as exhaustive about a history no source has mapped, and the parallel printed-counter rejection exists (exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences).
• The term comes from early-to-mid twentieth-century entertainment-industry slang, where lavender already signalled queerness. — HARD BLOCK. Two claims welded together, one verifiable and one not. Verified: lavender as slang for homosexual predates the compound (Green's Dictionary of Slang; Wordorigins — approved id lavender-queer-colour-code-predates-compound). NOT verified: that the COMPOUND "lavender marriage" originates as early-to-mid twentieth-century slang. The references read carry no dated citation for the compound at all — Green's has lavender adj./n. with citations but no dated compound headword; Wordorigins defines lavender marriage with no citation; Wiktionary's only quotation is from 2020; Wikipedia separates "lavender's association with homosexuality dates to the 1920s" from "the phrase appears in print at least as early as 1991". Shipped with statsUsed: [], so at draft time it traced to nothing (precedents: stashing-origin-unsourced-era, exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft). Asserting a documented coinage era the record does not document is the mirror image of stashing-coiner-not-established.
• The compound comes out of the English-language entertainment world of the early-to-mid twentieth century, when studio publicity departments managed the private lives of people under contract and an openly gay performer was a commercial liability. — HARD BLOCK, the same defect as lavender-directanswer-coinage-era, in the body. The studio-contract background IS verifiable (NYU JIPEL law review — approved id hollywood-morals-clauses-studio-era: morals clauses entered talent contracts in the early 1920s to protect studio reputation from performers' private conduct), but the sentence uses it to date the WORD, which no source read supports. Internally contradictory as well: the same section then says "Precise first-use years circulate in various retellings without agreement, so no year is given here", conceding the compound is not dated while the opening sentence dates it. Separately, "an openly gay performer was a commercial liability" is its own historical assertion; the morals-clause source is about contracts, not orientation, and does not carry it.
• Lavender had already been a coded reference to queerness in English slang before the marriage compound formed, surviving in phrases about a "lavender streak." — Substance verified, delivery non-compliant. Shipped with statsUsed: [] and with no source named in-sentence, so at draft time it traced to nothing — identical to exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft and courting-etymology-unsourced-in-sentence. §0 п.3 requires naming the source where the origin is known.
• Three scenes, offered as illustrations of how the phrase gets used rather than as guidance: — Printed count in body copy on a безцифровий site, tracing to nothing in approved_stats.json. Same class as exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences, with the identical aggravation: the paragraph right after the list opens "A fourth use is looser", so the stated count is false on the page itself. Fifth occurrence of the 'N scenes' pattern across this site (infatuation, limerence, demisexual, bicurious).
• Nearly every celebrity example in circulation rests on gossip columns, biographers who disagree, or posthumous speculation — 'Nearly every' is a near-universal quantifier over an unmeasured body of claims, stated as fact — no survey of the celebrity literature exists in approved[]. Same class as demisexual-most-listicles-skip / bicurious-most-listicles-skip (quantified claims about other people's content). The refusal this FAQ is making does not need the quantifier and is stronger without it.
• Affection, friendship, and lifelong loyalty appear throughout the historical record of these marriages. — The 'studies show' shape: asserts a body of historical evidence while naming no document, no historian and no archive, and 'throughout' additionally quantifies how that evidence is distributed. Direct precedent catfish-motives-documented ("documented reasons") and courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction (appeal to an unnamed authority). Nothing in approved[] covers the historiography of these marriages.
• Many involved real partnership, shared households, and children. — 'Many' is a prevalence quantifier applied to real marriages, with no source counting them. Class of enm-faq-plenty, exclusive-plenty-never-use-word, exclusive-faq-many-people-say-single.
• The second frequent swap is with platonic partnership. — Verbatim recurrence of exclusive-second-frequent-swap: 'frequent' asserts a measured rate of confusion with nothing behind it.
• The two words are often used in the same paragraph, which is why they blur. — 'Often' is an unmeasured frequency claim about how a body of writing is composed; no corpus. Same class as stashing-scene-most-often, exclusive-situationship-often-described and courting-frequency-quantifiers.
• Yes, and that is the usual picture. — ADVISORY. 'Usual' is a prevalence quantifier about real arrangements (compare the rejected 'usually' in exclusive-faq-many-couples-titles). It is close to the ALLOWED case courting-usually-marriage-definitional-hedge — a hedge on the sense rather than on people — but here it reads as a count of arrangements, and the following sentence ("The classic sense involves one gay or bisexual spouse and a straight spouse") already carries the point lexically.
• Historians work from letters, testimony, and admissions, and they still hedge. — ADVISORY. An unsourced generalisation about the working practice of a whole profession, stated as fact. Harmless in direction (it argues for caution) but still an unattributed claim about a body of work — the same family as courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction.
• Immigration and benefits law is the exception, since it can treat a marriage entered solely for a document as fraud. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. A legal-category assertion with no statute, agency or jurisdiction cited, on a site with no legal remit — precedent exclusive-legally-and-on-any-form. Mitigating: the FAQ hedges ('can'), names no country's law as settled, and closes by routing the reader to a lawyer, which is the compliant move.
• Four scenes carry most of the usage. — Sixth occurrence of the 'N scenes carry most of the usage' pattern already rejected on infatuation, limerence, demisexual, bicurious and lavender-marriage: a printed count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Content-spec §0: безцифрово; обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• The comparison table below is the answer most searches are after: which nearby word does what. — Superlative claim about what most searches want, resting on keyword-tool intent data that is not a published source with methodology, year and URL. Verbatim class of demisexual-most-searches-pair and bicurious-most-searches-pair.
• Two of those rows do most of the work. — Printed counter plus a 'most of the work' share, stated as fact about usage and reader need. Same class as limerence-four-words-most-confusion and the printed-counter rejections (exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences, lavender-three-scenes-count).
• It covers most close friendships, many work partnerships, and some arrangements that look domestic from the outside — Two prevalence quantifiers ('most close friendships', 'many work partnerships') applied to real relationships, with no survey behind them. Class of poly-enm-most, enm-faq-plenty, exclusive-faq-many-couples-titles, lavender-many-involved-real-partnership.
• Just friends is a status report, usually defensive and usually about one specific pair. — 'Usually' twice — unmeasured frequency claims about how a phrase is used in the wild. Same class as exclusive-faq-routinely-describe, stashing-generally-interchangeable and courting-frequency-quantifiers.
• Contact read as non-sexual by the people involved is standard in platonic bonds across cultures, and the word does not prohibit it. — A cross-cultural empirical generalisation ('standard … across cultures') presented as established fact — the 'studies show' shape with no study named. Would need anthropological or survey research with year and URL; nothing in approved[]. Precedents: catfish-motives-documented, lavender-historical-record-affection. The definitional point survives without it.
• *Platonic solids* are five regular polyhedra in geometry — A printed digit in body copy that traces to nothing in approved_stats.json. The mathematics is uncontroversial, but the site rule is mechanical (§0 безцифрово; the fact-gate blocks any number not in approved_stats.json), and the homonymy removal §0 ("пастка обсягу") requires works without the count. Not worth an approved entry on a dictionary of dating terms.
• It comes from Renaissance readings of Plato rather than from Plato's own vocabulary / The phrase was made in the Renaissance … English borrowed the phrase in the seventeenth century — Substantively correct, but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence: era-bearing origin claims ('the Renaissance', 'the seventeenth century') that at draft time traced to nothing. §0 п.3 requires naming the source where the origin is known; the fact-gate requires the claim to sit in approved_stats.json. Same shape as exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced and lavender-colour-code-unsourced-in-draft.
• a stage comedy of the period, *The Platonick Lovers*, is the standard example given for how quickly the idea attracted mockery — 'The standard example given' asserts a scholarly consensus about which example is standard, with no survey of the literature behind it, and 'how quickly' is an unmeasured rate. The play and the court-fashion mockery are verifiable (approved: platonick-lovers-court-satire); the consensus framing and the speed claim are not.
• *Queerplatonic* exists because speakers wanted a word for committed non-romantic partnership and found *platonic* too weak to carry it — evidence, in itself, that the older word had drifted towards meaning *merely* friendly. — An unsourced coinage-motive claim about a community term, then presented as 'evidence' of semantic drift in a second word. No lexicographic or community source was read for either half, and assertions about the coinage record have been rejected before in both directions (demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, lavender-directanswer-coinage-era). A queerplatonic origin claim would need its own approved entry.
• Asexual — Describes a person, not a relationship; asexual people have romantic relationships — ADVISORY, and an identity-precision issue rather than a statistic. As written it is a universal statement about a population, which §0 (/identity/ rules: самоідентифікація, не узагальнення про людей) does not permit; adding 'many' or 'some' would substitute an unsourced prevalence quantifier instead. The body text of the same page handles the word correctly.
• It builds on "thirsty," African American English slang for openly, unmissably wanting something or someone, which spread widely through hip-hop lyrics and Black social media. (body: "The base is thirsty, African American English slang … That sense travelled out of Black communities through hip-hop lyrics and Black social media into general online English") — HARD BLOCK. An origin attribution stated as documented fact, shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence, and supported by no source that could be read. Dictionary.com's slang entry (read directly) derives the phrase from "thirsty, slang for 'thirsting for attention'" with no AAE attribution. Green's Dictionary of Slang (read directly, entry "thirsty") labels the relevant sense US campus (earliest citation a 2014 UNC campus-slang collection) and the drugs sense US drugs (1992) — not US black. Wikipedia states "its precise origins remain unclear". The NPR / Merriam-Webster segment (read directly via the KSUT copy) traces "thirsty" to the general English sense of desire and names no community of origin. The only support located is press commentary on Merriam-Webster's 2023 batch (Atlanta Black Star), which characterises a whole list of additions rather than this etymology. §0 п.3: де НЕ відомо — «походження не встановлене», а не вигадуємо. Attributing a word to a named community without a lexicographic source is the same failure mode as inventing a coiner, and the gate applies in both directions.
• Its route — Black English, then platform slang, then dictionary — is the standard path for a large share of current dating vocabulary, and worth naming because the origin is often dropped once a word goes mainstream. — A quantified claim ('a large share', 'the standard path') about how the majority of a whole vocabulary originated, stated as fact, plus a second unmeasured frequency ('often dropped'). Verbatim the class rejected as catfish-coinage-pathway-most ('Unlike most app-era coinages'). No lexicographic or corpus study establishes that distribution, and the sentence also rests on the unsourced AAE premise (thirst-trap-aave-origin-unsourced).
• Who first put the two words together is not established — no coiner, first post or first print use can be named here, and inventing one would be worse than saying so. / "no single coiner is established" — The 'no coiner' half is correct and stays (Wikipedia: "its precise origins remain unclear"; no dictionary names one). The rest is contradicted by the record: dated attestations DO exist and can be named — Dictionary.com places the phrase on Twitter and in Urban Dictionary by the start of the 2010s, and Wiktionary carries dated print quotations from The New York Times and The Atlantic in the late 2010s. Same class as demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, bicurious-first-use-unestablished and exclusive-no-coiner-universal: asserting the absence of a record that exists.
• spreading first through image-heavy platforms and community definition sites, then through short-form video, across the 2010s — A dated diffusion claim — a decade plus an ordered platform-to-platform route ('first … then') — presented as fact, shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named. Nothing read establishes an ordering of platforms or a spread path; the sources establish attestation venues and dates only. Same shape as stashing-origin-unsourced-era and cushioning-mid-2010s.
• the phrase was eventually added to mainstream English dictionaries, which is the usual signal that a coinage has stopped being in-group shorthand / "Mainstream dictionaries picked the phrase up later." — Two defects. (1) The lexicalisation claim shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named — at draft time it traced to nothing (precedents: exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft, lavender-colour-code-unsourced-in-draft, platonic-origin-unsourced-in-draft). (2) "which is the usual signal that…" is an unsourced generalisation about lexicographic practice — the 'studies show' shape without a study — and the plural "dictionaries" overstates what was verified: one dated addition (Merriam-Webster).
• The most quoted example of the form. (the gym mirror selfie) — Superlative frequency claim about how a word is illustrated in writing, stated as fact, with no corpus. Direct precedents: stashing-scene-most-often, exclusive-one-of-most-common-uses, demisexual-most-searches-pair.
• **Thirsty** is the closest relative and the most common swap. — Superlative frequency claim about vocabulary confusion, presented as fact. Identical class to stashing-most-common-synonym and enm-intent-superlative; no corpus or lexicographic frequency source cited.
• A great many thirst traps are fully clothed; a great many revealing photos are not thirst traps. — 'A great many', twice — a prevalence quantifier applied to real posts, with nothing measuring it. Same shape as enm-faq-plenty, exclusive-plenty-never-use-word and lavender-many-involved-real-partnership. The definitional point (framing, not skin) survives without any quantity.
• Naming the device is now a common way of using it, which is a normal late stage in a slang term's life. — Two unsourced claims in one sentence: a prevalence quantifier about current usage ('a common way'), and a generalisation about the life cycle of slang terms presented as established linguistics ('a normal late stage') with nothing cited — the 'studies show' shape. Precedents: demisexual-common-route, demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished (unsourced generalisation about coinages).
• Slang that inflects like that has settled into general use rather than passing through. — A general linguistic law asserted as fact — that morphological productivity predicts a slang word's survival — with no linguist, corpus or study cited. Same class as thirst-trap-common-way-late-stage and courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction.
• Usage skews in familiar directions and the definition does not follow it. — An empirical claim about how the word is distributed across genders in real usage ('skews in familiar directions'), stated as fact with no corpus or study, and gestured at rather than stated — the reader is invited to supply a stereotype. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно, and the glossary does not characterise groups.
• Usage: current — established across platforms and now common in self-aware, joking use. — Two unmeasured usage-volume assertions in the status line: 'established across platforms' (reach) and 'now common' (prevalence of one ironic use). Direct precedent cushioning-applied-less-consistently ('steady use'), rejected on the same closing-line pattern.
• Common examples people cite: — ADVISORY. 'Common' quantifies which examples are commonly cited, with nothing measuring it — the soft end of the family that includes demisexual-closeness-is-common. The list works without the quantifier.
• Stated reasons vary widely: attention, flirting, reassurance after a breakup, promoting an account, or simply liking a photo. — ADVISORY. 'Vary widely' is a soft claim about the spread of real motives, and the list reads as a survey of them. Milder than catfish-motives-documented because the next sentence explicitly refuses to rank or attribute motives, which is the correct move and keeps the page inside its remit.
• usually framed as if it were about something else / usually presented as though it were about something else — ALLOWED WITH A CAVEAT, not a blocker. 'Usually' is a prevalence quantifier, but here it hedges the definition of the term itself — the wrapper is constitutive of the word — rather than measuring a population, and hedging a definition downward is the conservative direction. Same treatment as courting-usually-marriage-definitional-hedge. Logged so the precedent is explicit.
• The phrase moved into mass use through short-form video at the turn of the 2020s, carried by a track titled "Sneaky Link" that became a widely used sound on TikTok, and by a later sequel version. That is a documented route of spread… — Decade-bearing origin claim shipped with statsUsed: [] and tracing to nothing in approved_stats.json. Aggravated twice: (a) "documented" asserts a body of evidence while naming no document — the 'studies show' shape already rejected as catfish-motives-documented; (b) "moved into mass use" and "widely used sound" are usage-volume claims, which §0 requires to stay qualitative. Direct precedents: stashing-origin-unsourced-era, cushioning-mid-2010s, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced, hard-launch-transfer-turn-of-2020s. Verification failed at every lexicographic source (see verification_attempts).
• "Link" meaning 'meet up with someone' is the older piece, long established in British and Caribbean English and in Black American speech, where linking covers seeing someone casually. (Mirrored in the FAQ: "had been circulating in Black American slang and group chats before that.") — A dialect-history claim with a duration quantifier ('long established'), asserted as fact with no source named in-sentence, contrary to §0 п.3. Partly unsupported by the record read: Wiktionary's slang verb 'link' carries only UK grime/rap citations and no Caribbean label; the AAVE label attaches to the phrase 'sneaky link' on Wiktionary alone, which is crowd-sourced and carries no citations. "Group chats" is sourced to nothing at all. Same class as exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft and courting-etymology-unsourced-in-sentence at draft time — both of which only cleared once a lexicographic source was read directly.
• The comic use is now the most common one online. (Repeated in the closing line: "with the comic sense now more common online than the accusatory one.") — Superlative frequency claim about how a word's uses are distributed, stated as fact twice, with no corpus behind it. Verbatim class of exclusive-one-of-most-common-uses, stashing-scene-most-often, infatuation-retrospective-most-often. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• The word appears constantly in humour… — 'Constantly' is an unmeasured frequency quantifier over real usage — a statistic without a digit. Same family as 'routinely' (exclusive-faq-routinely-describe) and 'often'/'largely' (courting-frequency-quantifiers).
• Slang that spreads across word classes like this has usually settled into everyday use rather than staying a trend. — A general linguistic law about how slang behaves, asserted as fact with a prevalence quantifier ('usually') and no linguistics cited — the 'studies show' shape without the phrase. Also a claim about a whole vocabulary rather than this word, which is the shape rejected as catfish-coinage-pathway-most and hard-launch-one-of-the-few-terms.
• Popular use often assumes the last of these, which is why the term is frequently mistaken for a word about betrayal. — Two unmeasured frequency quantifiers ('often assumes', 'frequently mistaken') about real usage and real reader error, presented as fact. Precedents: courting-frequency-quantifiers, exclusive-second-frequent-swap, demisexual-most-confusion.
• Booty call is the closest older equivalent and the most frequent swap. — Superlative frequency claim about which term readers substitute most, with no corpus or lexicographic frequency source. Verbatim class of stashing-most-common-synonym and stashing-most-writers-synonym.
• This is the loosest and most contested use. — Ranked comparison of one use against all the word's other uses, stated as fact. Direct precedent: cushioning-contested-more-than-most ('the label is contested more often than most app-era words').
• The boundary of the term, which is the part most trend lists skip: — Quantified claim about competitor content with no survey of the SERP behind it. Third occurrence of a pattern already rejected verbatim twice (demisexual-most-listicles-skip, bicurious-most-listicles-skip). Also editorialising rather than dictionary register.
• It does not require sex. Most use assumes it, but the phrase is applied to hidden meetings generally, and the humour around it often has no sexual content at all. — Prevalence quantifier ('Most use') over real usage plus a second quantifier ('often'), with nothing measuring either. Precedents: micro-cheating-most-usage, demisexual-closeness-is-common. The definitional boundary survives intact without them.
• "Openly acknowledged between the two, often known to others" (AnswerTable row) and "the arrangement is named between the two people and often known to a wider circle" (body). — ADVISORY, not a hard block. 'Often known to others' quantifies real arrangements rather than the sense of the word — the class of cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing. The contrast the row needs is acknowledgement between the pair, which needs no frequency at all.
• Social-media posts often list informal expectations — discretion, no public tagging, no overlap with a friend group… — ADVISORY. The folklore framing itself is exemplary and compliant (§0: folklore numbers/rule-lists may be named as format, never as data) — only the quantifier 'often' is unmeasured. Logged so the precedent stays consistent with courting-frequency-quantifiers.
• Second, its meaning drifted as it travelled: in wider use it has broadened from "a hidden hookup" to "a person kept off the public record," which is why definitions online disagree with each other. — ADVISORY, and it falls with the origin paragraph anyway. A directional semantic-change claim ('broadened from X to Y as it travelled') is a diachronic finding that needs a corpus or a dated citation series; none exists here, and the entry's own two senses (event and person) are presented earlier as co-existing rather than sequential — so the drift narrative also contradicts the page. The first half of the same paragraph ('arrived pre-loaded with humour, which is why so much of its use is comic') depends on the rejected TikTok-origin claim and must go with it.
• The transfer is usually dated to around the turn of the 2020s. — A dated origin claim carrying a decade, shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence. Direct precedent: stashing-origin-unsourced-era. Aggravated by 'usually dated', an appeal to an unnamed consensus of datings — a frequency claim about a body of scholarship that does not exist here (nothing lexicographic was fetchable; the only pages carrying a date are AI slang blogs).
• The phrase is borrowed from product-launch vocabulary / 'borrowed from product and software release vocabulary, where a hard launch is a full public release' / 'Not to be confused with the older business sense' — A positive derivation claim (dating sense descends FROM the business sense) plus a temporal ranking ('older'), asserted four times with no source named and nothing in approved_stats.json. §0 п.3: де відомо — називаємо джерело. Merriam-Webster's slang entries 403; Dictionary.com has no entry; The Conversation (2022) does not make the claim. Precedent: exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft was rejected on exactly this shape and only cleared once Etymonline was read directly.
• Its route into dating vocabulary runs through image-first platforms — Instagram first, then short video, where the reveal is itself the content. — An ordered platform-diffusion claim ('Instagram first, then short video') stated as documented fact, immediately before the page says the origin is not established — internally contradictory. No first-attestation or corpus study read. §0 forbids inventing a route where none is documented.
• That contrast pair transferred intact into relationship talk, which is why the two dating terms arrived together rather than one at a time. — A causal claim about the order in which two words entered a vocabulary, presented as fact. Depends entirely on the rejected borrowing claim, and no attestation record was read for either term.
• This self-labelling use is common enough that the term often appears in the post it describes. — Two unmeasured frequency quantifiers ('common enough', 'often') about how a word is used, with no corpus behind them. Precedent class: micro-cheating-most-usage, stashing-scene-most-often, exclusive-faq-routinely-describe. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• The most common mix-up is with terms of agreement rather than terms of visibility. — Superlative frequency claim about where reader confusion lands, stated as fact. Verbatim class of enm-intent-superlative, limerence-four-words-most-confusion, demisexual-most-confusion.
• Many relationships are announced without any earlier hinting, and most are never posted at all. — Two prevalence quantifiers about real relationships ('Many', 'most') with no survey behind either. 'most are never posted at all' is a population statistic without a digit — exactly the class of poly-enm-most, enm-faq-plenty, exclusive-plenty-never-use-word.
• …nothing in either word requires a soft launch to come first, and many relationships are never posted at all. — Same prevalence quantifier as the body sentence, repeated in the FAQ. Consistency requires the same treatment (precedent: enm-faq-plenty mirrored the body rejection poly-enm-most).
• It is one of the few dating terms that people apply to themselves in the moment of use, writing the label into the caption. — A rarity claim ranking this word against the whole dating vocabulary ('one of the few'), stated as fact, with no lexicographic survey. Precedent: catfish-coinage-pathway-most (a claim about how most of a vocabulary behaves) and demisexual-aven-the-main (unsourced superlative ranking).
• FAQ entry "What is a soft launch in a relationship?" — a standalone definition of soft launch, plus "the term is covered in depth elsewhere". — NOT a number — a HARD network-boundary breach. content-spec §0 «Межі з мережею (HARD)» and §2 (/status/hard-launch/): soft launch belongs to situationshiphelp.com — згадувати можна, розгортати — НІ. A dedicated FAQ question targeting the neighbour's keyword with its own definition is expansion, not mention. 'covered in depth elsewhere' additionally points readers at the network, which the no-interlinking rule exists to prevent.
• Yes, and it is still spreading rather than fading. / …which keeps it visible and self-teaching to new users. / Terms in the Status hub tend to work this way. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. §0 permits qualitative description of spread ('термін поширився через короткі відео'), so 'still in use' is fine; but 'still spreading rather than fading' is a directional trend judgement of the kind §0 wants kept off the page, and 'tend to work this way' is a mild quantifier over the hub.
• It spread through online relationship forums, community definition sites and short-form video, mostly in the 2010s / broadly across the 2010s — An era claim needs its own approved entry with source, year and URL (precedents: catfish-origin-early-2010s, demisexual-origin-aven-mid-2000s, micro-cheating-origin-late-2010s, stashing-origin-2017-metro). Nothing in approved[] covers monkey barring/branching, and the draft ships statsUsed: []. Verification attempted: the earliest dated Urban Dictionary entry for "monkey branching" (2 December 2010, user soulblk4000) describes keeping backups while still attached — the cushioning sense, NOT the overlap-then-exit sequence this page defines; the entries matching the drafted meaning are dated 2022. So the decade is not merely unsourced, it is unsupported by the only dated attestations found — and a user-generated definition site is below the primary/authoritative bar in any case. The body's hedge ("approximate and repeated rather than documented") does not rescue a decade printed as fact, and the FAQ prints it with no hedge at all.
• Monkey branching is the more common spelling in forum and short-video use; monkey barring is the more common search phrasing (repeated in the closing line: "monkey branching the more common form in community and video use") — A comparative frequency claim about two variants across two channels, stated as fact — a statistic without a digit. Same class as enm-intent-superlative, demisexual-most-searches-pair, stashing-most-common-synonym. No corpus, Ngram or published volume data cited; internal keyword-tool data is not an approved source and §0 requires обсяг вжитку описувати якісно.
• the literal sense, which is much older and far more common … searching the bare phrase will mostly return equipment, safety guidance and school photographs — "Far more common" plus "will mostly return" are quantified claims about relative usage and about SERP composition, presented to the reader as fact. §0/§2 require the homonymy to be removed in the first paragraph — that licenses the disambiguation, not a measurement of it, and no published source is cited (phase-1 keyword-tool data is not an approved source).
• Cushioning is the closest neighbour and the most frequent swap. — Superlative frequency claim about which confusion occurs most often among readers. Direct repeat of the shape rejected in enm-intent-superlative, limerence-four-words-most-confusion, stashing-scene-most-often.
• The two senses almost never appear in the same context, which is why the confusion happens through search results rather than in conversation. — "Almost never" measures co-occurrence across contexts and is stated as fact; the causal second clause rests on that measurement. No corpus evidence. Same class as micro-cheating-two-features-universal ('wherever').
• Slang that grows a passive voice has usually settled into use. — A general linguistic regularity ('usually') asserted about slang as a class — the 'studies show' shape without the study. No lexicographic source, and it is not a claim about this word. Same class as the rejected 'community coinages rarely have a single documented inventor' (demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished).
• Much of the popular writing and the folk sayings attached to the branching variant address women specifically — "Much of" quantifies a body of writing that has not been measured — the same quantifier-without-a-digit class as 'most'/'plenty'/'generally'. The underlying observation (the branching variant carries folk sayings aimed at women) is defensible only without the share.
• AnswerTable cell: "A spelling variant, not a different meaning; carries more gendered folklore" — "More" is a comparative measurement of how much folklore attaches to each variant — unmeasured and unsourced. Borderline, but the standing site rule is to drop comparatives of volume.
• It travels attached to a folk saying about swinging from branch to branch … Those claims circulate as folklore, not as findings; this glossary has no approved figures on the subject and does not repeat the numbers that float around with the phrase. — NOT a rejection — recorded as precedent. The passage names the folk material AS folklore and explicitly refuses to reproduce the circulating figures, which is the required treatment (cf. limerence-four-stages, catfish-cod-anecdote-is-folklore). CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED in this framing only; if any revision states the folk claim as fact or prints a figure alongside it, it becomes an automatic reject.
• No single author or founding post is documented as the coinage, and this entry does not name one: the origin is communal, and the specific first use is **not established**. — Factual assertion contradicted by the record. AUREA's Aromantic History and Ace Archive both document an earliest known use in a dated post by a named user (maxnova100) on the Yahoo group that preceded AVEN — see approved id aromantic-origin-early-2000s. Exact repeat of demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, exclusive-no-coiner-universal and bicurious-first-use-unestablished: the entry would tell readers the record is emptier than it is, and would brand accurate competitor entries as inventing detail.
• most visibly the forums of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) and the discussion spaces around them, during the first decade of the twenty-first century — Two faults. (1) 'Most visibly' ranks one venue against all others without evidence — precedent demisexual-aven-the-main. (2) It is off the record: the earliest documented use is on the Yahoo group 'Haven for the Human Amoeba', which preceded AVEN; AVEN usage is attested later. The era itself is now approvable (aromantic-origin-early-2000s), but the draft shipped it with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence.
• It is also frequently searched together with *asexual*, which is a separate label about a separate kind of attraction. — Search-volume claim stated to the reader as fact. Keyword-tool volume is not a published source with methodology, year and URL, and §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy. Precedent demisexual-most-searches-pair, bicurious-most-searches-pair.
• The most common mix-up, and the one behind most searches. — A superlative plus a second search-volume claim, both unsourced. Same class as enm-intent-superlative and demisexual-most-searches-pair.
• and it is the error aro communities push back on most often — Superlative frequency claim about community discourse, with no corpus or survey behind it. Precedent infatuation-retrospective-most-often, stashing-scene-most-often.
• Many aro people describe those attachments as the central ones in their lives — Prevalence quantifier applied to a real population with no survey behind it — precedent enm-faq-plenty ('plenty'), demisexual-closeness-is-common ('is common'). On an /identity/ page §0 raises the bar further (точність там, де вона болить): describing in bulk what a group feels, with nothing behind it.
• This is the part the listicles skip, and for this word it does most of the work. — Two faults in one sentence: an unsourced claim about competitor content (precedent demisexual-most-listicles-skip, bicurious-most-listicles-skip) and a share-of-work quantifier ('does most of the work').
• many people who use the label say they do not fall in love in the romantic sense. Most also say they feel deep love of other kinds — Two stacked prevalence claims ('many … say', 'Most also say') about what an identity group reports, with no survey, no year and no URL — the 'studies show' shape without the phrase, in the highest-cost place on the site to guess (§0 identity rules).
• People who adopt the label commonly describe the same reference points — Prevalence claim about how a population describes itself ('commonly … the same'), unsourced. Precedent demisexual-common-route. The FAQ's refusal to test the reader is correct and survives the fix.
• Many LGBTQ+ organisations and events include aromantic and asexual identities under the umbrella, and aro communities generally count themselves in. — Quantifier over an unenumerated set of organisations ('Many') plus a bulk characterisation of a community ('generally count themselves in'), neither sourced. Same class as enm-faq-plenty and stashing-generally-interchangeable. The even-handed framing of the dispute itself is fine; only the quantifiers fail.
• Yes, and many are. — Prevalence quantifier about a population with no source. The rest of the answer already makes the definitional point without it.
• the vocabulary that came out of that need is usually called the **split attraction model** — ADVISORY, not a hard block. 'Usually called' is a mild usage quantifier, and the label is a later retrospective community coinage rather than the name the early vocabulary carried at the time — the draft implies the name was there from the start.
• Two features of the identity sense do the most work in practice. — Count plus share of a word's usage ('do the most work in practice'), stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Repeat of the rejected pattern (infatuation / limerence / demisexual 'three scenes carry most of the usage'; cushioning-every-usage). §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• it carries much of the traffic around the bare term — Search-volume / reach claim printed for the reader ('much of the traffic'). Keyword-tool volumes are not a published source with methodology, year and URL, and §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy. Precedent: demisexual-most-searches-pair. Contrast with cushioning-far-more-common-senses, allowed because it compares MEANINGS qualitatively; 'traffic' names measured search demand and is not allowed.
• It has its own entry-level popularity and is frequently searched on its own. — Second search-volume claim on the same page; same class as asexual-biology-sense-traffic and demisexual-most-searches-pair. Also back-office SEO register ("entry-level popularity") inside a dictionary entry.
• The pair that causes the most confusion is asexual and celibate, because English speakers hear both as "not having sex." — Superlative ranking of reader confusion, stated as fact, with no study behind it. Direct precedents: demisexual-most-confusion, limerence-four-words-most-confusion, enm-intent-superlative.
• Asexual people report the full range of sexual behaviour, including none. — Empirical behaviour claim about a real population, in the 'studies show' shape ('report'), with no named survey or peer-reviewed source. Nothing in approved[] covers behaviour among people who identify as asexual. Aggravated by the §0 identity rule: the entry describes the word, it does not characterise the group.
• Asexual people are partnered, unpartnered, married, and dating. — Distribution claim about a real population's relationship statuses, stated as fact with no source (Census / NCFMR-class evidence would be required). The preceding sentence already carries the definitional point.
• asexual people appear in every relationship format: dating, long-term partnership, marriage, and none of the above — Universal claim ('every') about how a population is distributed across all relationship formats, stated as fact with no source. Same class as micro-cheating-two-features-universal ('wherever') and cushioning-every-usage.
• Many people who identify as asexual describe romantic feelings, relationships, and partnerships; others identify as aromantic as well. — Prevalence quantifier ('many') applied to a real population with no survey behind it. Precedents: enm-faq-plenty ('plenty'), demisexual-closeness-is-common ('is common').
• Treating asexual as a claim about love is the most common misreading of the term. — Superlative frequency claim about how readers misread a word, presented as fact, with no corpus or survey. Identical shape to enm-intent-superlative and demisexual-most-confusion.
• Asexual and other ace-spectrum identities are widely included under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, and the A is usually read as covering asexual, aromantic, and agender. — Two unmeasured frequency hedges ('widely', 'usually') describing how whole communities read a letter, with no cited source. Same class as demisexual-libido-independent ('often reported') and cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing. The FAQ's actual point — that the debate exists and this entry does not settle it — survives intact without them.
• That is a reply people who use the word report hearing, not part of what the word says. — 'people … report hearing' is an evidentiary claim about what a population experiences, with no study or documented account cited — the 'studies show' shape without the phrase.
• Scattered uses of asexual to describe people appear across twentieth-century writing on sexuality, but the meaning current today was assembled in English-language online communities in the early years of the century. — An assertion about a documentary record ('scattered uses appear across twentieth-century writing on sexuality') naming no work, author or corpus — the catfish-motives-documented shape. What is verified (approved id asexual-word-19th-century-biology, Etymonline) is a person-referring sense attested in the nineteenth century, not a survey of twentieth-century sexology. Also ambiguous: 'the early years of the century' directly after a twentieth-century sentence reads as the 1900s.
• the phrasing "little or no sexual attraction" that circulates in dictionary entries, media explainers, and profile bios traces to that community's public wording — Contradicted by the primary page. AVEN's own overview (asexuality.org, read directly 2026-08-26) defines an asexual person as one who "does not experience sexual attraction — they are not drawn to people sexually and do not desire to act upon attraction to others in a sexual way". It does not use "little or no sexual attraction". Attributing that specific phrase to AVEN's public wording is invented provenance, same class as micro-cheating-unnamed-psychologists. Knock-on: using "little or no sexual attraction" as this dictionary's own neutral definition is fine; sourcing it to AVEN is not.
• Individual coiners for most of these are not documented, and this entry does not supply any. — Near-verbatim repeat of demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished and stashing-coiner-not-established, and false for a term the same page lists: demisexual is documented to a named AVEN forum user on a dated thread (approved id demisexual-origin-aven-mid-2000s). Also carries an unsourced quantifier ('most of these') over the whole spectrum vocabulary.
• most searches for this string lead to the street artist Banksy — Superlative search-volume claim stated to the reader as fact. Keyword-tool volumes are not a published source with methodology, year and URL, and §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy. Direct precedents: demisexual-most-searches-pair, bicurious-most-searches-pair, bicurious-search-interest-climbing.
• "The dating word is a metaphor built on that stunt" / "That contrast is the whole reason the artist's shredding image was borrowed" / FAQ: "It borrows the street artist's best-known stunt, in which a framed painting shredded itself at the moment it sold." — HARD BLOCK. A stated fact about why the word was coined, asserted three times as settled, that the record does not settle. The coverage read directly splits: Vice (13 Jul 2025) explains the name by the artist's sudden, unannounced appearances and disappearances; Out (21 Jul 2025) and The Tab (15 Jul 2025) point to the work that destroyed itself. No coiner's own account was reachable. Mirror image of lavender-directanswer-coinage-era: asserting a documented origin where the record carries none. The stunt itself IS verified (approved id banksy-shredding-stunt-sothebys) — the motivation for the coinage is not.
• the term surfaced in British dating-trend writing in the mid-2020s, was picked up by relationship columns and app-published trend lists, and spread through short-form video / FAQ: "Banksying surfaced in dating-trend writing in the mid-2020s and spread through short-form video" — Era-bearing origin claim shipped with statsUsed: [] and with the source left anonymous, in two places. Precedents: stashing-origin-unsourced-era, cushioning-mid-2010s, courting-1990s-movement-unsourced, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced. Three further details ride on it that no source read supports: "British" (US and UK outlets carry the term in the same weeks), "app-published trend lists", and the short-video transmission route.
• Who first used it that way is **not established**. This glossary can name no coiner, no first printed use and no founding post. — Universal negative about the whole record, stated as fact, in a case where an attribution circulates: dating-trend coverage credits UK dating coach Hayley Quinn with the term. That attribution could NOT be read on any directly-fetched reputable page (Today.com and The Everygirl both returned HTTP 403; Vice, Out and The Tab name no coiner), so it is not approved and must not be printed either. But asserting non-attribution as a fact about the record is itself an unsourced claim — the exact error rejected three times already: stashing-coiner-not-established, demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, exclusive-no-coiner-universal.
• its usage is measured almost entirely against the artist's name, so any impression of how common the dating sense is should be treated as impression, not measurement — The caution is right; the premise is a measurement claim of exactly the kind the caution warns against ("measured almost entirely against"), with no corpus or search source behind it. Class of demisexual-most-searches-pair and bicurious-search-interest-climbing.
• Usage: rising — young, still settling, and heavily outweighed in search by the artist's name. — Search-volume comparison stated as fact in the entry's closing line, resting on nothing in approved_stats.json. Verbatim class of bicurious-search-interest-climbing (a trend/volume claim from an internal keyword tool) and demisexual-most-searches-pair. The site is безцифровий, and that includes numberless volume comparisons.
• in the version of the word that circulates most, unusually pleasant — Superlative frequency claim about which sense of a word circulates most, with no corpus. Precedents: infatuation-retrospective-most-often, micro-cheating-most-usage, exclusive-one-of-most-common-uses.
• **Slow fade** is the closest neighbour and the most frequent swap. — 'Most frequent swap' asserts a measured rate of confusion. Verbatim recurrence of exclusive-second-frequent-swap and lavender-second-frequent-swap.
• The boundary of the term, which is the part most trend lists skip — Quantified claim about competitor content with no survey of the SERP behind it, plus editorialising outside dictionary register. Precedents: demisexual-most-listicles-skip, bicurious-most-listicles-skip.
• In almost every other context, anything built on that name refers to the artist. — Near-universal quantifier over all contexts of use, stated as fact and unmeasurable without a corpus. Precedent lavender-nearly-every-celebrity-example ('nearly every'). Distinguish from the ALLOWED cushioning-far-more-common-senses, which is a bare qualitative contrast doing §0 homonymy removal; this one adds a quantified scope.
• Crowd-written definition sites carry entries close to this one, alongside older unrelated senses about making street art. … because they are undated user submissions and cannot establish who used the dating sense first. — Two unverified factual assertions about a named class of sites: what their entries contain (no such entry was read), and that the submissions are undated — which is wrong, since crowd dictionary entries of this kind carry publication dates. The editorial ruling (treat them as evidence of use, not as an origin record) is sound; the stated reason is false, and a false reason on a page whose selling point is sourcing is the worst kind of error here.
• the far more common sense of the name — ALLOWED WITH A CAVEAT, logged so the precedent stays explicit. Comparative usage statement, but qualitative — no digit, no rank over a named peer set — and it performs exactly the homonymy removal §0 ("пастка обсягу") requires of this entry by name. Identical treatment to cushioning-far-more-common-senses.
• Three elements sit inside the definition, and all three have to be present. — ALLOWED. The count is structural and definitional — the section then delivers exactly three, and the closing paragraph turns the count into the entry's test ("Remove any element and a different word applies"). Distinguish from the rejected printed counters exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences and lavender-three-scenes-count, both of which were contradicted by the very next paragraph. Nothing is being counted in the world.
• FAQ "Is banksying the same as ghosting?" — "Ghosting is disappearance without an ending being stated…" — ADVISORY, not a blocker. Ghosting belongs to situationshiphelp.com under the §0 network boundary: mention allowed, expansion and linking not. The draft does not link it (correct) and keeps it to a one-clause contrast in the body (correct); the FAQ is at the edge — a definitional clause plus two sentences of elaboration. Nothing here explains how to recognise or respond to ghosting, so it stays on the right side, narrowly.
• Three ordinary uses, as illustrations rather than instructions: — Printed counter in body copy on a безцифровий site, tracing to nothing in approved_stats.json. Sixth occurrence of the pattern (infatuation, limerence, demisexual, bicurious, lavender-marriage) and carries the same aggravation as exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences and lavender-three-scenes-count: the paragraph immediately after the list opens "A fourth use is the unmarked one", so the stated count is false on the page itself.
• **Body count** entered general English through military and journalistic language for tallies of the dead, and it became widely familiar through twentieth-century war reporting. — Correct in substance but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence — at draft time it traced to nothing, and "twentieth-century war reporting" is an era-bearing origin claim, which on this site requires an approved_stats entry plus an in-sentence source (§0 п.3). Identical shape to stashing-origin-unsourced-era, exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft, courting-etymology-unsourced-in-sentence, lavender-colour-code-unsourced-in-draft.
• **Origin not established:** no single community, publication, or platform can be credited with the shift, and this entry does not name one. — The refusal itself is right and is what §0 п.3 prescribes; the universal form is not. "No … can be credited" asserts as fact that the whole record contains no attribution — the claim rejected as exclusive-no-coiner-universal and, when checked, found false twice (stashing-coiner-not-established, demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, bicurious-first-use-unestablished). Nothing here surveyed first attestations; what was read (Wiktionary, Green's) simply carries no coinage record.
• The phrase has become the name of the argument itself, not just the tally, which is a common late stage for a slang term. — Prevalence claim about how slang terms in general develop ("a common late stage"), stated as fact, with no lexicographic or corpus study behind it. Direct precedent demisexual-common-route and the 'rarely have a single documented inventor' clause in demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished — unsourced generalisations about whole vocabularies.
• The phrase spread as a content format first and a genuine conversation second, which is why so much of its recorded use is performance rather than disclosure. — Two unsourced empirical claims in one sentence: a sequencing claim about how the word spread (format before conversation), and a share-of-usage claim ("so much of its recorded use") about a corpus nobody assembled. §0 permits qualitative spread description («термін поширився через короткі відео») but not a measured share or an asserted order of spread. Same class as infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage and micro-cheating-most-usage. "Recorded use" additionally implies a citation record that was not consulted.
• Many speakers use the phrase without any of that weight attached, treating it as slang shorthand or a joke format… — 'Many speakers' is a prevalence quantifier over a real population with no survey behind it. Class of enm-faq-plenty, exclusive-plenty-never-use-word, lavender-many-involved-real-partnership. The position being described survives without counting its holders — and §2 requires this page to describe the dispute without taking or sizing sides.
• "speakers use different rules and rarely state which" / FAQ: "any total depends on the counting rule the speaker used and rarely states" — 'Rarely' is a frequency claim about how real speakers behave, stated as fact twice, with nothing measuring it. Precedent cushioning-to-cushion-is-rare and courting-frequency-quantifiers. The definitional point — that the slang fixed no counting rule — is fully carried without it.
• What changes is how the question is received, because the phrase is applied unevenly and is often asked of women more pointedly. That asymmetry is a documented complaint about the slang, not part of its meaning. — Two defects. (1) 'often asked of women more pointedly' is an unsourced frequency claim about real behaviour — a statistic without a digit; on a delicate page §2 flags («БЕЗ моралізаторства в жоден бік»), asserting the asymmetry as measured fact takes a side the entry elsewhere refuses to take. (2) 'a documented complaint' asserts a body of evidence while naming no document — the 'studies show' shape, precedent catfish-motives-documented and lavender-historical-record-affection.
• Younger speakers usually assume the sexual sense first and the war or gaming sense second, which is a reversal of how the phrase read to earlier generations. — A generational comprehension claim quantified with 'usually' and asserted as a measured reversal between cohorts. No survey, corpus or reading study; nothing in approved[]. Class of courting-frequency-quantifiers and exclusive-faq-commonly-monogamous-later.
• Status: current — in heavy use in English-language internet speech, contested, and still sharing its spelling with two unrelated senses. — 'Heavy use' is a usage-volume claim with nothing measuring it — the same defect as the rejected 'steady use' in cushioning-applied-less-consistently. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно, and volume adjectives are the quantified form. ('Contested' is fine: the page demonstrates the dispute rather than sizing it.)
• Both senses remain in ordinary use, and a search for the bare phrase will return all three. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. A claim about what a search engine returns, stated as fact, with no SERP study citable (keyword-tool and SERP observations are not a published source with methodology, year and URL — precedent demisexual-most-searches-pair). Mitigating: it performs the homonymy removal §0 («пастка обсягу») requires of this entry, and carries no digit.
• Number of sexual partners is the neutral, clinical phrasing used in health questionnaires. — ADVISORY. A factual claim about the wording of clinical instruments with no instrument named and no source read. Low-risk and probably true, but it is an appeal to an unnamed body of practice — the family of courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction. The register contrast the FAQ is drawing does not depend on it.
• This is usually described as a double standard. — ALLOWED, logged for precedent. 'Usually' here hedges what the objection is called, not how many people hold it — the distinction drawn in courting-usually-marriage-definitional-hedge (allowed) versus cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing (rejected). The sentence names a label, not a rate.
• "What does 10 body count mean?" / "It means the speaker is claiming ten sexual partners…" ; "What is 4 body count?" / "Four sexual partners, by the speaker's own counting rule." — ALLOWED, logged so the precedent is explicit rather than silent. These digits are not statistics: they echo the search query and are then glossed arithmetically as what a speaker would be claiming. No population, share, rate or prevalence is asserted, so nothing needs a source. Directly parallel to the standing allowance for folklore listicle numbers ("10 signs", "5 types") named as a format rather than as data.
• "the dating sense spread through online advice writing, community definition sites and short-form video, across the mid-2010s" (body, §"Where does the word 'breadcrumbing' come from?") and "...in the mid-2010s" (FAQ, "Where does the term breadcrumbing come from?") — A dated era window presented as fact, twice, with no source. Precedents enmeshment-origin-1970s, catfish-origin-early-2010s and demisexual-origin-aven-mid-2000s: era-level claims pass ONLY after verification against a primary or contemporaneous record. None was obtainable here — merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breadcrumbing returns HTTP 403 to automated fetch so no First Known Use could be read, and secondaries contradict each other ("early 2010s" / "mid-2010s" / "around 2016"). The draft's hedge ("approximate and widely repeated rather than precisely sourced") is honest but still leaves a decade standing as the answer, unlike the limerence-four-stages precedent where the model is explicitly disowned as folklore. Aggravating: "short-form video" in the mid-2010s is anachronistic (TikTok is 2018+), so the window is internally wrong as well.
• The romantic sense came first; the transfer shows what the word is really about — A precedence claim about which sense of the word appeared earlier, stated as established fact — and contradicted by the same entry's own admission that the dating origin is not established. No record datable to either sense was obtainable (MW 403; no first-use record). Unsourced chronology gets the same treatment as an unsourced number, per the precedent on 'most' / 'plenty' / 'most common'.
• "Paperclipping, a newer coinage, describes…" (FAQ) and "Paperclipping is the newer neighbour" (§"What is breadcrumbing confused with?") — Same class as breadcrumbing-romantic-sense-first: an unsourced relative dating of two slang terms presented as fact. Nothing in approved[] establishes the age of either coinage, and no first-use record was readable even for breadcrumbing itself.
• Most recorded use is self-applied and warm. — HARD BLOCK. 'Most recorded use' is a share-of-usage claim that additionally asserts a record ('recorded') no corpus, dictionary citation set or study was consulted for. Direct precedents: infatuation-retrospective-most-often, stashing-scene-most-often, micro-cheating-most-usage. Nothing in approved[] measures how delulu is distributed between self-application and application to others — approved id delulu-origin-kpop-fandom-2010s explicitly licenses nothing of the kind.
• "most often applied by speakers to themselves" (directAnswer); "The word describes a stance a speaker takes toward their own hopes far more often than a judgement about someone else." (FAQ 1); "Speakers usually apply it to themselves" (FAQ 2); "usually about how much they like the speaker" (body, "What does delulu mean?"); "it is usually said with a smile" (opening paragraph); "They often appear in the same sentence online" (FAQ 7) — HARD BLOCK, six occurrences of one defect. Each is an unmeasured frequency or proportion claim about how real speakers use the word ('most often', 'far more often than', 'usually' ×3, 'often'), stated as fact. The directAnswer version is the most consequential: it is the AI-Overview-citable sentence, so the site's most quotable line currently carries a statistic without a digit. Precedents: courting-frequency-quantifiers, cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing, exclusive-faq-routinely-describe, stashing-generally-interchangeable. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Usage skews toward young women online; the definition does not follow usage. — HARD BLOCK. A demographic distribution claim about who uses a word, stated as fact, with no named survey, corpus or platform study carrying methodology, year and URL. Worse than a bare 'most' because it attributes a behaviour to a named population. Merriam-Webster's slang entry does mention a TikTok shift 'especially among young women', but that page returned HTTP 403, is a single source and is not corroborated by a second reputable secondary — it does not reach even the medium bar, and approved id delulu-origin-kpop-fandom-2010s deliberately excludes it.
• The boundary of the term, which is the part most trend lists skip: — HARD BLOCK. Third verbatim recurrence of a pattern already rejected twice (demisexual-most-listicles-skip, bicurious-most-listicles-skip): a quantified claim about competitor content with no citable survey of the SERP behind it. Also editorialising rather than dictionary register.
• "that use is visible in community glossaries and forum writing across the 2010s" and "short-form video carried the word into general dating vocabulary in the 2020s" (body); "That fandom use is documented in community writing from the 2010s" (FAQ 3) — HARD BLOCK AS SHIPPED. Two decade-bearing origin claims delivered with statsUsed: [] — at draft time they traced to nothing in approved_stats.json, which the fact-gate blocks outright (CLAUDE.md: «fact-gate блокує будь-які числа не з approved_stats.json»). Aggravated by the evidentiary framing 'documented' / 'visible in community glossaries and forum writing' with no glossary, forum or dictionary named — the 'studies show' shape (precedents catfish-motives-documented, lavender-historical-record-affection) — and by §0 п.3, which requires naming the source where the origin is known. Same shape as stashing-origin-unsourced-era, cushioning-mid-2010s, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced, courting-1990s-movement-unsourced, platonic-origin-unsourced-in-draft.
• after which it appeared in mainstream headlines about new dating language. That sequence is repeated widely rather than documented precisely — An appeal to an anonymous body of coverage ('mainstream headlines') to carry a factual claim about the word's spread, with no outlet named — the same defect as courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction (unnamed 'dictionaries'). The following sentence then concedes the sequence is 'repeated widely rather than documented precisely', the self-undercutting structure already rejected as cushioning-mid-2010s: the entry asserts and withdraws in consecutive sentences.
• The slang form clips it and doubles the final syllable, a pattern English uses to make a word sound childish and therefore harmless — the same move that turns *presentation* into *presso* or *chocolate* into *choccy*. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. No number, and the clipping+reduplication analysis is licensed by approved id delulu-origin-kpop-fandom-2010s (Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster both describe delulu as a clipped, reduplicated form of delusional). What is unsourced is the generalisation about what the pattern does in English ('to make a word sound childish and therefore harmless') and the two analogies, neither read on a lexicographic page.
• Who wrote it first is not established, and this glossary does not name a coiner it cannot document. / no individual coiner is established (FAQ 3) — ALLOWED, logged for precedent because three near-identical lines were rejected on other pages (demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, bicurious-first-use-unestablished). Those failed because the lexicographic record DID name a coiner or a dated first attestation. Here it does not: Dictionary.com's slang entry attributes the term to the K-pop fan community and names no individual, and Merriam-Webster's entry likewise describes a community origin. The negative claim matches the record, so it stands.
• "delulu is the solulu" — "The phrase is folklore about self-belief, not a claim this glossary can evaluate." (FAQ 5); "In this frame the word means unearned confidence treated as a resource." (body) — ALLOWED, logged. The catchphrase carries an implicit self-help claim (that unearned confidence produces outcomes) which the site could not verify; the draft never asserts it, names it as folklore, and explicitly refuses to evaluate it. Same treatment as limerence-four-stages, conditionally allowed on exactly that framing. The gloss 'delusion is the solution' is corroborated on the Merriam-Webster slang entry.
• "Where this page stops" — no-diagnosis statement plus routing to a licensed professional or a helpline; "It is not a diagnosis, and not a description of anyone's mental health"; the delusionship line kept to one row of the table with no link — NOT A REJECTION — recorded as a positive check for the next reviewer. The entry sits next to a clinical word and handles it correctly: it diagnoses no one, gives no advice on what to believe or send, states that a slang term is never evidence about anyone's mind, and routes heavier questions outward without inventing a service or a number. The §0 network boundary holds: delusionship is distinguished in a single line and neither expanded nor linked (situationshiphelp.com), and no cross-network link appears on the page.
• usually appears as a noun phrase: a DTR, the DTR talk, or the verb form "we need to DTR" — 'Usually' quantifies the distribution of grammatical forms in real usage, with no corpus or citation record behind it. Same class as exclusive-faq-routinely-describe and cushioning-to-cushion-is-rare — a statistic without a digit.
• In workplace and clinical settings the letters usually have nothing to do with dating. — 'Usually' asserts a measured share of workplace and clinical uses. Nothing measures it, and the homonymy point does not need a frequency. Precedent exclusive-faq-many-couples-titles.
• Office use of the dating sense is almost always a joke, applied to an undefined working arrangement rather than a romantic one. — 'Almost always' is a near-universal frequency claim about how colleagues speak, stated as fact, with no source. Precedents: micro-cheating-two-features-universal ('wherever'), cushioning-every-usage ('every usage').
• Context makes the difference obvious, so the two rarely collide in practice. — 'Rarely' is an unmeasured frequency claim about real-world ambiguity. Same class as cushioning-to-cushion-is-rare. The disambiguation stands without it.
• When people use the phrase they usually mean a partner whose title was settled in an explicit conversation rather than assumed over time. — 'Usually' quantifies what speakers mean by a phrase, with no corpus or lexicographic record — and the same answer concedes the phrase is not an established term, so there is no citation record that could be quantified.
• dictionaries do not record it as its own entry — A universal negative about the whole lexicographic record, stated as fact; no dictionary survey was run. Precedents: exclusive-no-coiner-universal, bicurious-no-clinical-manual, stashing-coiner-not-established — universal claims about 'the record' are rejected on this site because twice they turned out to be false.
• Grammatically it works three ways: as a noun (a DTR), as a modifier (the DTR talk), and as a verb (we still haven't DTR'd). — A printed counter in body copy on a безцифровий site, tracing to nothing in approved_stats.json — the shape rejected as exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences ("Four ordinary sentences"). It also asserts a closed inventory of grammatical roles with no grammar or corpus source.
• The verb use is the newer of the three. — A diachronic ranking — which grammatical form is younger — presented as fact. It needs a first-attestation or citation record; the lexicographic entry read (Dictionary.com, approved id dtr-dating-sense-dictionary-com) makes no such statement and no dated corpus evidence was found. Also depends on the rejected count ('of the three').
• It grew out of American campus and young-adult dating vocabulary and was carried further by relationship advice writing … The three-letter form is later and belongs to typed conversation: forums, instant messaging, and then texting. — A positive origin narrative — milieu, propagation vehicle and the relative sequence of the full phrase versus the initialism — shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence, which §0 п.3 requires wherever an origin is asserted. The lexicographic record read (Dictionary.com's DTR entry) is silent on origin; the only pages carrying the campus / religious-youth-group story are SEO content farms, which are not an acceptable source. The draft cannot both say the origin is not established and describe the milieu with confidence. Same shape as stashing-origin-unsourced-era and bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced at draft time — except that here no approvable replacement exists.
• a common register for the term — 'Common' is a prevalence quantifier over the term's registers, with nothing measuring it. Precedents: demisexual-closeness-is-common, enm-faq-plenty.
• the listener still does not know the outcome and normally asks next — 'Normally' quantifies what real listeners do — a behavioural frequency claim with no source, and it slides from defining the word to describing conversations. Same class as exclusive-faq-routinely-describe.
• People routinely use "we DTR'd" to mean "we agreed to be exclusive" — 'Routinely' is an unmeasured frequency claim about a population's speech, presented as fact. Verbatim the shape rejected as exclusive-faq-routinely-describe.
• The second frequent swap is with hard launch. — Verbatim repeat of an already-rejected sentence on a sibling page (exclusive-second-frequent-swap): 'frequent' asserts a measured rate of confusion with nothing behind it.
• Reading DTR as "becoming official" is the single most common error. — Superlative frequency claim about reader error, stated as fact, with no study or corpus. Direct precedents: enm-intent-superlative ('the single most common reason people look the term up'), demisexual-most-searches-pair.
• The dread often attached to it comes from usage in comedy and advice writing, not from the term. — Two problems in one sentence: 'often' quantifies an unmeasured association, and the causal attribution ('comes from usage in comedy and advice writing') asserts how a connotation arose with no source — the evidentiary shape of catfish-motives-documented.
• Status: current — in ordinary use in both typed and spoken English, with no sign that its meaning is shifting. — ADVISORY, not a hard block. 'No sign that its meaning is shifting' reports a negative result from a semantic-drift check that was not performed and cannot be cited. The 'current' status label itself is this glossary's own dated judgement and stands.
• the same three letters carry unrelated clinical and job-title meanings / the three-letter form — NOT a rejection; logged so the fact-gate and future reviewers do not trip on it. 'Three letters' states a self-evident property of the string D-T-R, not a measurement of people, usage or the record. Contrast the genuine rejection dtr-grammar-three-ways-count, which counts claims rather than characters.
• Short-video platforms have since pushed it back into speech, so people now say "dee-tee-arr" aloud. — NOT a rejection. §0 names exactly this as the compliant way to describe reach: «термін поширився через короткі відео», а не «зріс на 159%». Qualitative, numberless, no population quantified.
• That attribution is repeated rather than documented as a coinage, so this glossary treats first use as **not established**. (body) / "That attribution is repeated rather than documented, so this entry treats first use as unestablished." (FAQ "Where does the phrase the ick come from?") — Fourth occurrence of an already-rejected pattern (demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, exclusive-no-coiner-universal, bicurious-first-use-unestablished): the draft asserts non-attribution as fact where the lexicographic record does carry one. Dictionary.com's slang entry states outright: "The term the ick in reference to dating comes from 'Once in a Lifetime,' a 1999 episode of the TV Show Ally McBeal"; the Wikipedia article "The ick" dates the earliest documented use to Ally McBeal and cites Merriam-Webster for it. §0 п.3: де відомо — називаємо джерело. Aggravating: the draft names the show and the decade while shipping statsUsed: [], so at draft time the dated origin claim traced to nothing (precedent stashing-origin-unsourced-era).
• the route into mass use: British reality television in the late 2010s, where contestants used the phrase on air and viewers picked it up, then short-form video, where the list format gave it a shape anyone could copy. — A dated spread claim carrying a decade, shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence — identical shape to stashing-origin-unsourced-era and courting-1990s-movement-unsourced. It also states the causal route as established fact where the source hedges ("seems to have helped popularize").
• The **adjective** is old and ordinary: *icky*, meaning distasteful or repellent, has been in general American English since well before dating slang existed / FAQ: "The adjective icky, meaning distasteful, is old American English." — Correct in substance but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named in-sentence; §0 п.3 requires naming the source where the origin is known, and the fact-gate requires the claim to sit in approved_stats.json. Precedents: exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft, courting-etymology-unsourced-in-sentence.
• This is the phrase's most common habitat and the reason it spread. — Superlative frequency claim about where a phrase is used, plus a single-cause claim about why it spread — neither measured, neither in approved[]. Precedents: enm-intent-superlative, stashing-scene-most-often, exclusive-one-of-most-common-uses. It also cuts against the one sourced account available: Dictionary.com credits reality television with the popularisation, with social-media spread following in the early 2020s.
• This is the load-bearing part: if the trigger is serious, most speakers reach for other words. — 'Most speakers' quantifies an unmeasured population of language users, stated as fact. Direct precedents: stashing-most-writers-synonym, micro-cheating-most-usage, poly-enm-most.
• speakers frequently mark the reaction as unreasonable while reporting it — 'Frequently' asserts a measured rate of a speech behaviour with nothing behind it. Same class as exclusive-second-frequent-swap, exclusive-faq-routinely-describe and courting-frequency-quantifiers.
• Most reported triggers are harmless, and the word carries no claim that anyone did wrong. (body) / "most reported icks describe harmless things, which is precisely what makes the word useful" (FAQ "Is the ick the same as a red flag?") — 'Most reported triggers' / 'most reported icks' is a share-of-a-corpus claim about real reports, stated twice as fact. No corpus, survey or content analysis of ick reports was read, and nothing in approved[] covers it. Precedents: infatuation-three-scenes-most-usage, micro-cheating-most-usage. §0: безцифрово, обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• It is not permanent by definition. Speakers often describe it that way; the term itself makes no claim about duration. — 'Often' quantifies how a population of speakers describes the feeling — an unmeasured frequency claim. Same class as exclusive-situationship-often-described and demisexual-libido-independent.
• The phrase is used most visibly in videos and posts by women listing their own triggers, which is why it reads as gendered — Superlative claim about how the visibility of a phrase is distributed across speaker groups, stated as fact with no content analysis behind it. Same class as demisexual-most-searches-pair. The FAQ's substantive point — that the definition is not gendered — survives intact without it.
• "Three elements sit inside the definition, and removing any one of them takes the word away." and "Two layers, and only one of them is traceable." — Printed item counters in body copy. Precedent exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences and the file note: друковані лічильники пунктів у тілі are rejected on a безцифровий site, because every number in body text has to trace to approved_stats.json and these trace to nothing. Lower severity than a prevalence claim (the counts are true of the page itself, as in courting-two-revival-sources), but the standard is applied consistently and counters break silently whenever the list is edited.
• "usually triggered by a small, trivial detail" (definition/directAnswer); "*icks* usually means small ongoing irritations"; FAQ "the plural usually describes small irritations"; "Speakers sometimes use the ick to soften a genuine warning" — ALLOWED, logged for precedent. These hedge the SENSE of the word (what the term is normally applied to), not the behaviour of a population, and they carry no count. Same treatment as courting-usually-marriage-definitional-hedge; distinguish from cushioning-usually-involves-breadcrumbing and ick-most-speakers-other-words, which quantify real cases and real speakers.
• "Where this page stops" section; "It is not a diagnosis, of anyone"; no advice, no scripts, no verdicts — PASS, logged so the check is on the record. The entry carries the safety routing the spec asks for (licensed professional or a helpline in the reader's country, no invented numbers), diagnoses nobody, gives no instructions on changing another person, stays in dictionary register, and keeps network-owned vocabulary unexpanded and unlinked (§0 network boundary). Homonymy removal (interjection ick, fish disease ich) is present as §0 «пастка обсягу» requires.
• New relationship energy comes out of English-language polyamory communities that organised online in the 1990s — Dated origin claim presented as fact, with no primary source read, and contradicted by the best available attribution (Zhahai Stewart's Usenet postings, dated to the 1980s; his own retrospective in Loving More No. 26 is subtitled 'fifteen years after coining the term'). content-spec §0 п.3 permits an era only where the source is known and has been checked; here it was neither.
• No single coiner is documented. … attributions to one named author are not established; this entry does not supply one. — Negative fact claim that is false as written, and the exact twin of demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished: the coinage is attributed to Zhahai Stewart, and the publisher of Loving More Magazine describes issue 26 as his reflection 'fifteen years after coining the term'. content-spec §0 п.3 requires naming the source where it IS known.
• Three scenes carry most of the usage. — Fourth occurrence of a pattern already rejected on /feelings/infatuation/, /feelings/limerence/ and /identity/demisexual/: a count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Aggravating in the same way — the draft then supplies four scenes, so the stated count is internally false.
• The abbreviation is used far more often than the full phrase. — Comparative frequency claim = a statistic without a digit (precedents: poly-enm-most, enm-intent-superlative). No corpus or usage study read.
• This is the borrowed sense, and it is now the more common one online. — Prevalence ranking of two senses of a word, stated as fact, with no corpus or usage source. Same class as demisexual-most-searches-pair.
• It circulates in the same non-monogamous vocabulary as NRE and is far less common. — Comparative frequency claim about ERE versus NRE, unsourced.
• Monogamous speakers use it constantly. — Frequency assertion doing the work of a usage statistic. §0 allows qualitative description of spread, not measured-sounding intensity claims about a population of speakers.
• There is no settled, universal answer, and pretending otherwise is the most common failure of pages on this subject. — Superlative claim about competitor content, stated as fact, with no survey of the SERP behind it. Precedents: demisexual-most-listicles-skip, bicurious-most-listicles-skip. Also editorialising rather than dictionary register.
• This is the most persistent misreading of the *pan-* prefix. — Superlative frequency claim about how readers misread a word, with nothing measuring it. Same class as enm-intent-superlative, stashing-most-common-synonym.
• Most people who use the label notice gender perfectly well. What they report is that gender does not decide whether attraction happens. — HARD BLOCK. Prevalence claim about a real population's inner experience, stated as fact, with no survey or peer-reviewed source. §0 (безцифрово) plus the /identity/ accuracy rule: the entry describes what a word claims, not what a share of a community experiences. 'What they report' is the same problem in softer form.
• Many people qualify for both sentences and choose the one that fits the shape of their own experience — Prevalence quantifier ('many') applied to real people, unsourced. Precedent: enm-faq-plenty, demisexual-closeness-is-common, exclusive-faq-many-people-say-single.
• Both describe attraction to more than one gender, and many people fit both words. — Same 'many people' prevalence claim, in the FAQ where an AI Overview is most likely to lift it verbatim. Unsourced.
• Yes, and many people describe themselves with both words, sometimes as bi/pan. — Third instance of the same unsourced 'many people' population claim.
• It reflects that one word needs less explaining in most rooms and the other describes the experience more exactly. — 'In most rooms' quantifies social settings with no measurement, and 'describes the experience more exactly' ranks one word as more accurate than the other — forbidden by the /identity/ rule (не ранжувати «справжність»), and contradicted by the page's own closing position.
• In coming-out contexts it is frequently paired: "bi, or pan, depending on who's asking." — Frequency quantifier over unmeasured usage; precedent demisexual-libido-independent ('often'), stashing-generally-interchangeable ('generally'), exclusive-faq-routinely-describe ('routinely'), courting-frequency-quantifiers.
• It has never, in that community's own definitions, meant attraction to only two genders. — Universal historical claim ('never', across all of a community's definitions over time) asserted as fact. Verified material covers present-day organisational phrasing (bisexual-definition-more-than-one-gender), not the whole history of bi self-definition. Same shape as micro-cheating-two-features-universal, exclusive-no-coiner-universal, bicurious-no-clinical-manual.
• **Bisexual**, as bi organisations have long phrased it, means attraction to more than one gender — The definition is verified, the attribution is not: an anonymous plural ('bi organisations', 'long') where §0 п.3 requires naming the source when it is known. Precedent micro-cheating-unnamed-psychologists, courting-dictionaries-apply-either-direction.
• The word appears in a small number of stable settings, and its job changes slightly in each. — Count-plus-distribution claim about where a word appears, with no corpus behind it — the family already rejected four times ('three scenes carry most of the usage') and once as a printed counter (exclusive-four-ordinary-sentences).
• became widely visible in the 2010s, when several public figures used it about themselves and mainstream dictionaries recorded the identity sense — The decade is now approvable (pansexual-mainstream-visibility-2010s, medium), but the content is wrong as written: the orientation sense was already recorded by the 1970s (pansexual-orientation-sense-by-1970s). What the 2010s brought was lookup volume and word-of-the-year attention, not first recording. 'Several public figures' also quantifies an unnamed group where §0 п.3 asks for the source. Shipped with statsUsed: [].
• in early twentieth-century psychoanalytic writing, *pansexualism* was a criticism aimed at theories that explained too much through sexuality — Correct in substance but shipped with statsUsed: [] and no source named — a dated origin claim that traced to nothing at draft time (§0 fact-gate; identical to exclusive-etymology-unsourced-in-draft, stashing-origin-unsourced-era, bicurious-origin-personals-unsourced, courting-etymology-unsourced-in-sentence).
• The designer is not reliably documented, so this dictionary does not name one. — Assertion of an absence the record contradicts: the flag is documented as posted to a Tumblr account at the start of the 2010s and attributed to Jasper V., who later confirmed authorship (pansexual-flag-tumblr-early-2010s). Exact precedent: demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished, stashing-coiner-not-established, bicurious-first-use-unestablished. The same answer's "circulated online from the 2010s" also traced to nothing at draft time.
• No single coiner of that use is reliably documented, and this entry does not invent one. — CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED, unlike the flag sentence. Checked against Etymonline: the orientation sense is recorded from the 1970s with no attributed coiner, and no reputable source names one. Keep only in this modest form — no generalisation about coinages, and not a claim that no coiner CAN be credited (exclusive-no-coiner-universal).
• "named it in 1956 while writing about television audiences" (directAnswer); "in a 1956 article in the journal Psychiatry" (FAQ "Who coined the term parasocial relationship?"); "in an article published in the journal Psychiatry in 1956" (body, "Where does the word parasocial come from?"); "Origin in 1956 media research" (meta description) — The underlying fact is verified at high confidence (approved id parasocial-horton-wohl-mid-1950s; Crossref record for DOI 10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049). What is rejected is printing the exact year: §2 fixes епоха так, конкретні роки — ні, and §2 names ONLY /feelings/limerence/ as the exception. Every other origin entry on this site prints an era, so a printed 1956 breaks the site's own rule and the parallel between pages. Aggravating: the draft shipped statsUsed: [] while printing a year — the fact-gate blocks any number not listed there.
• Four scenes carry most of the everyday usage. — Fourth occurrence of an already-rejected sentence shape (infatuation-, limerence-, demisexual-three-scenes-most-usage): a count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus, Ngram or citation study behind it. Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Five neighbouring words absorb most of the confusion. — Repeat of limerence-four-words-most-confusion and demisexual-most-confusion: a distribution claim about where reader confusion lands, with nothing measuring it.
• Most media researchers treat these bonds as an ordinary feature of media use rather than a problem in themselves. — Quantified consensus claim about a research field, stated as fact — the 'studies show' shape with a majority attached. Establishing 'most researchers' needs a systematic review or meta-analysis with year and URL; none read, nothing in approved[]. Aggravating: it turns an unmeasured consensus into a health reassurance, on a page whose own boundary section says the glossary does not weigh in.
• most writers would reach for a different term, because reciprocity breaks the definition — Prevalence quantifier applied to how real writers use the word, with no corpus or usage study behind it. Precedent: stashing-most-writers-synonym, poly-enm-most.
• This is the newest and fastest-moving corner of the word, and part of why the term is marked rising. — Comparative rate-of-change claim about usage growth, stated as fact — a trend statistic without a digit (§0 bans «зріс на 159%» and its wordy equivalents; cf. enm-intent-superlative, cushioning-contested-more-than-most). No corpus or trend source read.
• The dating-adjacent uses are the ones drifting fastest — Same shape as parasocial-fastest-moving-corner: a ranked rate-of-drift comparison across usage domains, presented as measured fact.
• Three scenes carry most of the usage. — FOURTH verbatim occurrence of a pattern already rejected on infatuation, limerence and demisexual: a count plus a share of a word's usage distribution, stated as fact, with no corpus evidence. Content-spec §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно.
• Most of the confusion comes from words that answer a different question. — Prevalence quantifier ('most') applied to real readers' confusion, with nothing measuring it. Direct precedents: demisexual-most-confusion, limerence-four-words-most-confusion.
• The pair searched most often is sapiosexual and demisexual — Superlative search-volume claim stated to the reader as fact. Keyword-tool volumes are not a published source with methodology, year and URL, and §0 bans quantified reach claims in body copy. Verbatim class of the already-rejected demisexual-most-searches-pair.
• Reading it as a self-compliment is a common misread, and the source of much of the word's mockery. — Two unsourced quantifiers in one sentence: 'a common misread' (prevalence among readers) and 'much of the word's mockery' (share of a body of discourse). Precedents demisexual-closeness-is-common, enm-faq-plenty.
• OkCupid is the platform most often named in accounts of that shift. — Superlative frequency claim about an unnamed body of 'accounts' — the 'studies show' shape with a ranking attached. The verifiable fact behind it is narrower and is approved as sapiosexual-okcupid-orientation-option-mid-2010s: OkCupid listed the term among expanded orientation options in the mid-2010s.
• Its coinage is usually traced to online journalling communities in the late 1990s, with a LiveJournal user commonly named as the source. That attribution circulates widely but is not firmly documented, so this entry marks the specific origin as not established and records only the era and the setting. — Two faults. (1) Contradicted by the record: the primary artefact is fetchable and dated — LiveJournal user wolfieboy's public entry "Stoked on sapiosexuality" (15 March 2002), containing his own coinage statement. Attribution to a named user in a named venue on a dated post IS documented; telling readers it is 'not established' repeats the already-rejected demisexual-individual-authorship-unestablished and stashing-coiner-not-established. (2) 'late 1990s' is asserted flatly as the coinage era, but that date rests solely on the coiner's self-report inside the later post; the documented public use is at the turn of the 2000s. §0 п.3 permits an era where it is known — this one is known only as a self-report.
• The construction is transparent, which is part of why it spread so easily. — Causal claim about why a word diffused, stated as fact, with no lexicographic or corpus source. approved id sapiosexual-latin-root-sapiens licenses the root gloss and nothing about diffusion. Same 'explains the mechanism without a study' shape as catfish-motives-documented.
• Judgements about who is intelligent are not neutral: they tend to track formal education, accent, first language, wealth and disability. (body) / judgements of intelligence often track schooling, accent, class or disability (FAQ) — An empirical claim about bias in judgements of intelligence ('tend to track', 'often track') stated in the site's own voice as established fact, with no study named — the 'studies show' shape without the phrase. It also breaks the page's own frame, which is to name the positions and settle none: here the dictionary endorses one side's empirical premise.
• many people in LGBTQ+ communities object to it appearing in the same list… / many people in LGBTQ+ communities argue an orientation describes attraction by gender — 'many people in X communities' is a prevalence quantifier applied to a real population with no survey behind it. Precedents enm-faq-plenty ('plenty'), exclusive-faq-many-people-say-single ('many people'). The objection is real and reportable as a position; its headcount is not.
• most often seen on dating profiles (line 38) / The word almost always appears as self-description (line 47) / the label mostly appears as a profile line (FAQ "How do sapiosexuals flirt?") — Three share-of-usage quantifiers about where a word appears in the wild, stated as fact, with no corpus. Direct precedents: infatuation-retrospective-most-often, stashing-scene-most-often. §0: обсяг вжитку описуємо якісно — 'mostly / almost always / most often' are statistics without digits.
• People who use the label about themselves usually say the same thing: attraction switches on during conversation… — A claim about what a population reports ('usually say the same thing'), with no survey or corpus of self-descriptions behind it. Same class as demisexual-common-route and exclusive-faq-commonly-monogamous-later.

The rules

1. Named source in the same sentence as the number, with the year.
2. Primary source only — we link the origin, not an article about it.
3. Dated verification: every statistic carries its verification date on the statistics page.
4. Unverifiable → unpublished. No exceptions.