About BrokenCtrl — AI accountability, documented
What this site is, how it works, and why the methodology matters.
BrokenCtrl documents AI accountability — the gap between what AI companies say about ethics and what they actually do. The site covers AI governance failures, corporate conduct contradictions, militarisation of AI, regulatory accountability gaps, and economic displacement. This page explains how the work is verified, how content is produced, and how independence is maintained.
What BrokenCtrl is
BrokenCtrl is my playground. Started with a friend as a website designed to sell Call of Duty cheat codes (yes, I know, no ethics there), my friend renounced the idea pretty fast. I decided the name was too good, so I decided to keep it. In 2023, I decided this would be great as an AI reviews website. What happened is that I realised the harm and the power of these tools. I noticed that the focus in the industry is on development, not on accountability or responsibility. That is how the idea of AI Ethics appeared, and my ambition to become a voice advocating for it.
I am not an AI authority. But I am reading and documenting every day. I do not know how AI works but I am learning. I have experience in compliance, which helps me understand the ethical part of the problem, and a keen sense for doing what is right before what brings money. I was one of the people who fully embraced social networks, since everything was a farmland. Today, I recognize these as the most harmful tools of the century. I won't be the one who single-handedly stops AI going the same way. Especially as the same people develop it, and we all know their goal is profits, not the good of humanity. But at least I can try to do my part, as much as I can.
Who runs it
I have a compliance background in gambling. Yes, I know, it is hypocritical to talk about fairness when I am working in such an industry. But at least I am on the good side of it, as I am the one closing people´s accounts when they play too much. Gambling compliance taught me what I need to know about risk tiering, about the power corporations hold over the client, the difference between enforcement and policy and about preventing problems before they appear. It is time to put this knowledge to good use. I also build the websites I write on. I think that is enough to start a project like this and see where it goes.
How claims are verified for AI accountability — three-tier confidence labelling
Every factual claim in a case study or review carries one of three confidence labels. This is the core of the methodology — not a disclaimer, a discipline. The label tells you exactly how much weight to give a claim and what evidence supports it.
Confirmed by primary sources — official statements, regulatory filings, academic research, technical documentation, or direct primary evidence. Can be independently checked.
Supported by credible reporting from multiple independent outlets, but not yet confirmed by primary documentation. Treated as likely but subject to revision.
Reported but contested, based on a single source, or not yet confirmed by independent evidence. Included for completeness — never treated as established fact.
When evidence changes, confidence labels are updated. Every page carries a "Last updated" timestamp. Corrections are noted explicitly — not silently overwritten.
The Pentagon gave Anthropic a Friday 5:01pm deadline to remove objections to autonomous weapons use — confirmed by Washington Post primary reporting and corroborated by Anthropic's own public statements.
OpenAI moved quickly to fill the gap left by Anthropic on classified networks — reported consistently across multiple credible outlets, but not confirmed in direct statements from either company at the time of writing.
Some reporting suggested the pressure on Anthropic included threats beyond standard procurement leverage — based on single-source accounts, not independently corroborated.
The same case, three different levels of evidence. The label does not say whether something matters — it says how confident you should be that it happened. Read the full case library for context.
How AI tools are reviewed — the Ethics Score
Every tool in the Ethical AI Reviews section is scored across six dimensions. Scores are based on publicly verifiable evidence only — not vendor claims, not marketing copy.
| Dimension | What is assessed |
|---|---|
| Transparency | Does the company disclose how the model works, what data it was trained on, and what its limitations are? |
| Privacy | How is user data handled, stored, and shared? Are data practices clearly documented and verifiable? |
| Safety controls | What guardrails exist? Are they technical or purely policy-based? Have they been tested or red-teamed? |
| Data governance | Are training data sources documented? Are third-party data rights respected? |
| Corporate conduct | Does the company's behaviour match its stated ethics commitments? Are there documented contradictions? |
| Real-world harm | Is there documented evidence of harm caused by the tool in deployment? How did the company respond? |
AI accountability requires context, not just scores. A rating is a starting point — the full case notes behind it contain the evidence.
Independence statement
BrokenCtrl is not affiliated with any company; it is a purely independent one-man creation. There is no paid coverage; affiliate links are disclosed where present. I am trying to build a totally fair website — useful to readers, not to corporations of any kind.
Money is important to keep any project alive. If I ever host paid editorials, they will be fair and not biased.
Corrections and contact
If something here is wrong — a source doesn't support what I attributed to it, a confidence label is off, new evidence changes the picture — use the contact page and tell me. Same place for tips on cases that should be covered, or anyone you think I'm missing. No form, no PR process, no media inbox. I read everything.
QUESTIONS
Who runs BrokenCtrl?
One person — a compliance professional working in regulated gambling. That background brings a specific lens to AI accountability: knowing what real enforcement infrastructure looks like, and what companies do when they want its appearance without the substance.
Is BrokenCtrl affiliated with any AI company?
No. Independent operation, no paid coverage. Affiliate links are disclosed on the page they appear on. They do not affect Ethics Scores, confidence labels, or editorial conclusions.
What is the BrokenCtrl methodology?
Every factual claim carries a confidence label — Verified, Probable, or Unverified — based on the strength of the supporting evidence. Tool reviews score across six dimensions including corporate conduct and real-world harm. Full methodology above.
Does BrokenCtrl use AI to write content?
Yes, and it is labelled on every page. HGC for content written entirely by the author, HAC for collaborative work, AGC for AI-drafted content reviewed by the author. A site about AI ethics that hides its own AI use would contradict everything it covers. Full authorship policy above.
How do I send a correction or a tip?
Use the contact page. There is no form, no PR process, no media inbox. Everything that comes in gets read.