Research updates - August 28, 2026 (batches 22-23 video archive promoted)

26 researched videos promoted. The YouTube research archive held 94 fully transcribed videos while the tracked dataset knew of 68. The 26 videos researched in the two most recent archive batches now have dataset rows, pages and statement records, taking the catalogue to 94 videos.

75 timestamped statements added. Of the 84 verbatim quotes held in those 26 archive files, 75 were promoted, taking the researched-statement total from 208 to 283. Seven were dropped by the standing limit of four statements per video and two were excluded because they rest on unevidenced accusations against identifiable individuals - the same exclusion the August 23 promotion applied. Every promoted statement carries a researched clip end time.

Filing-restriction factors assigned to the older batch. Statements archived before the factor vocabulary was introduced on August 27 carried only a prose relevance note. Each was re-read and labelled against the published vocabulary. Six statements name one of the three core factors and enter the statement supercut, taking it from 22 clips to 28. Twelve quotes the archive had provisionally marked Strong were reclassified: under the published rubric a Strong tier needs one of the three core factors together with an identified case or dispute, and an amendment to an existing action, a direct appeal, or a general account of filing volume does not meet it.

Video metadata corrected. Six rows recorded a format that disagreed with the archived video type, and eleven rows carried a URL in the wrong form for their format. Three Shopify-related videos that name no lawsuit, court or filing had their case-link confidence reduced from High to Medium, matching the correction already applied to a fourth.

Related cases

• 2025-03929 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2025-04277 — Tufano v. TikTok
• 2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County
• 2025-05634 — Tufano v. Google
• 2025-07808 — Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC
• 2025-09608 — Tufano v. City of Scranton
• 2026-00063 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2026-00216 — Tufano v. Meagher
• 2026-00262 — Tufano v. Google
• 2026-01161 — Tufano v. The State of California
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00879 — Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-02137 — Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al
• 3:26-cv-02238 — Tufano v. Meagher Insurance Agency et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

Note

Statements are transcribed from each video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and checked against playback at the cited timestamp; wording is preserved as transcribed, including its errors. A filing-restriction factor records what the speaker said about his own filing conduct. It is a research classification, not a judicial finding, and no court in this dataset has made a vexatious-litigant determination. One archived video was catalogued with no statement promoted, because its only passage naming a tracked defendant runs into an unevidenced allegation about private individuals.