Cross-source hypothesis
Protection Exists on Paper
Which protected place deserves a closer human inspection?
Place a monument’s legal status beside its most recent public photographs, map edits, and news signals—without turning those traces into an automated damage verdict.
Why this pairing matters
The non-obvious connection
Legal protection is a static administrative fact. Photographs, infrastructure edits, and reporting are imperfect but more recent public traces. Their different clocks make missing observation visible.
The demonstration
One visible reveal
Select one familiar site and compare three panels: protected in law, last publicly photographed, and recent public signals nearby—each labeled with time, distance, and provenance.
Three-hour boundary
The smallest credible version
Ten curated Tbilisi sites, bundled registry rows and photographs, one evidence timeline, and a map. AI may translate or summarize retrieved evidence but may not decide whether a monument is damaged.
Claim boundary
What the data cannot establish
A news mention or OpenStreetMap edit is not evidence of physical harm. An upload date may not be a photograph’s capture date, and registration is not inspection.
Underlying evidence
Open every connected source
Culture
Cultural heritage registry
National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of GeorgiaInspect fields and samples →Community media
Commons geosearch
Wikimedia Commons contributors and Wikimedia Foundation APIInspect fields and samples →Geospatial infrastructure
OSM Tbilisi edits
OpenStreetMap contributors / OpenStreetMap FoundationInspect fields and samples →Events and media
GDELT Tbilisi news
The GDELT ProjectInspect fields and samples →Shared ingredients