What we checked
Re-reading the frozen copies against each other, and against what the event says about itself elsewhere on the same site. These are observations about published artefacts, not allegations about anybody. Machine surface: checks.json.
Beta, agent-produced, human-reviewed. The research, extraction and drafting are done by software agents. Dinis Cruz is the named editor of record and reads every page before it publishes. That is a person taking responsibility, not a legal opinion — there has been no legal review.
Every claim here walks back to bytes we hold. Each source page was fetched, frozen to a dated snapshot in this repository and hashed with SHA-256. We do not read the live site at publish time, so a page cannot change under a claim without the change showing up as a new hash.
We report what others have published. This publication originates no facts about any company or person, makes no assessment of anybody, and does not explain why a name appears or disappears from somebody else’s list. The full limits →
If you are named on this site — what is held about you, why, and how to have it removed without giving a reason: your data →
What re-reading the frozen copies establishes. Observations about published artefacts, not allegations about anybody. An event still announcing speakers weekly will have prose that lags its own list; that is ordinary. What is not ordinary is that nothing on the open web re-checks it.
The speaker count
| Cards rendered on the speakers page | 64 |
| Number stated in that page’s own prose | 64 |
| Do they agree? | Yes |
They agree today. They did not five days ago — and the interesting part is that both numbers moved together, which is what a maintained page looks like. The diff →
What does not agree is the count against the target. The homepage says “targeting 2,000+ founders, investors and operators, with 150+ speakers planned, 200+ startup booths planned, 3 stages and 40+ coun”. Those are answers to different questions and this publication keeps them apart rather than treating one as evidence about the other.
The stage names
Two disjoint sets of stage names appear on different pages of the same site:
| Page | Stages named |
|---|---|
/agenda | Impact Stage, Unicorn Stage, Workshop Rooms |
/speakers | Impact Stage, Unicorn Stage, Workshop Rooms |
/sponsors | Main Stage, Startup Stage, Workshop Rooms |
/ai-summary | Main Stage, Startup Stage, Workshop Rooms |
/what-to-expect | Impact Stage, Unicorn Stage, Workshop Rooms |
All pages agree there are three stages and all agree on Workshop Rooms. The venue is Unicorn Factory Lisboa, which makes Unicorn Stage the likelier current name — but that is an inference, the event has not said so, and this publication does not resolve it. The reading →
What we cannot check
The event states speakers and attendees from 40+ countries. No speaker card carries a country, so this publication cannot verify or dispute it from the source. Recorded as unverifiable here, not as doubted.
Both are stated as targets for an event that has not happened. There is nothing to verify yet, and there will not be until afterwards — which is itself a reason to keep the snapshots.
The agenda names sessions and the speakers page names people. The source does not join them, so neither does this publication.
For an agent
Verification results, machine-readable at /portugal/data/checks.json. The speaker count stated in the page's prose currently AGREES with the number of cards rendered. Neither is the same as the event's target of 150+ speakers, which is a plan rather than a count. Two disjoint sets of stage names appear on the event's own pages; this publication records both and resolves neither. The 40+ countries claim is unverifiable from the source — recorded as unverifiable, not as doubted.