Types of explicit content sent to victim (text, images, audio, video).


Date of conviction for sexual offense.


Links investigation to compliance-based arrest coordination.


Links investigation to agencies coordinating across state boundaries.


Timeframe in days between investigation completion and compliance-based arrest.


Links cross-state recidivism to states involved.


Date of birth of registered sex offender.


Links exploitation pattern to age-aware criminal activity.


Location where offender is employed.


Links search warrant to registered address where it was executed.


Links arrest to specific compliance activity during which it was executed.


Links registered offender to recidivist classification.


Date when registration requirement expires (if applicable).


Duration of digital exploitation in months.


Eye color of registered sex offender.


Legal full name of registered sex offender.


Hair color of registered sex offender.


Known alias used by registered sex offender.


Compliance history for registered sex offender.


Online identifier used by registered sex offender.


Offender profile containing comprehensive information.


Official registration record for offender.


Height of registered sex offender.


Links high-volume exploitation to bidirectional content exchange.


Links pattern to high-volume communication exploitation.


Links recidivist offender to digital exploitation pattern.


Date of last update to registration information.


Whether registration is required for life.


Whether lifetime supervised release is required.


Agency responsible for managing registry.


Mandatory minimum sentence in years for recidivist offense.


Maximum sentence exposure (years or life).


Total number of messages sent in digital exploitation.


Description of the sexual offense.


Vehicle owned or operated by offender.


Links a recidivist sex offender to child sexual abuse or CSAM incidents that occurred after their initial sex offender registration date.


Number of prior sexual offense convictions.


Race of registered sex offender.


Pattern of recidivism (escalation, similar_mo, cross_jurisdictional).


Links forensic examination to multi-modal digital evidence recovered.


Registry system where offender is registered.


Date when sex offender registration was first required.


Required frequency of registration updates (annual, quarterly, monthly).


Unique identifier assigned to sex offender registration.


Current registered address of offender.


Length of sentence imposed for offense.


Sentence served for prior conviction before reoffending.


Sex of registered sex offender.


Social Security Number (restricted access).


Restriction imposed on registered sex offender.


Links investigation to cross-state victim targeting.


Risk tier classification (Tier I, II, III).


Links recidivist activity to cross-state digital investigation.


Verification check confirming registration information.


Age of victim at time of offense.


Age of victim that offender explicitly acknowledged.


Number of victims involved in offense.


Relationship between offender and victim (stranger, known, family).


Categorization of a registry compliance violation (e.g., failure_to_register, false_information, late_update, residency_restriction_violation).


Weight of registered sex offender.


Years between release from prior offense and new offense.


Demand for more graphic content or additional intimate images.


Sextortion incident involving offender lying about their age when interacting with children (e.g., posing as juvenile).


Validation shape for age deception instances.


Tactic of lying about age when interacting with children (e.g., adult posing as juvenile).


Validates age deception consistency.


Validates compliance duration consistency.


Victim complies with initial requests before recognizing threat.


Validation shape for compliance response instances.


Threat to send intimate images to victim's contact list.


Reconstruction of conversation patterns and progression timelines.


Validates data quality for sextortion incidents.


Message making specific demands backed by threats.


Forensic examination of seized devices for sextortion evidence.


Platform feature where messages automatically delete after viewing.


Threat mechanism involving doxxing (threatened release of identifying/personal information) to intimidate or coerce a victim.


Validation shape for doxxing threat mechanisms.


Use of emotional tactics (false love, friendship, etc.) to control victim.


Validation shape for escalation pattern instances.


Specific demand made by sextortion offender using threat leverage.


Final phase involving threats and blackmail using obtained images.


Validation shape for extortion tactics instances.


Creating fake profiles on platforms with false age and personal information.


Validates financial sextortion demands.


Validation shape for financial sextortion instances.


Demand for gift cards as form of payment.


Creating false identity or persona to deceive victims.


Phase where intimate images are obtained from victims.


Platform feature enabling image sharing in private conversations.


Message requesting intimate images from victim.


First phase involving age deception and false identity establishment.


Digital platform used for instant messaging in sextortion incidents.


Sextortion conducted through instant messaging platforms with direct private communication.


Validation shape for international coordination instances.


Psychological manipulation technique used to control and exploit victims.


Demand for money or financial payment.


Posing as age-appropriate peer to gain victim trust.


Validation shape for peer impersonation instances.


Demand for in-person meeting or physical contact.


Platform feature enabling private direct communication.


Gradual increase in sexual content and requests to avoid triggering victim resistance.


Validation shape for progressive escalation instances.


Threat mechanism involving destruction of property to compel compliance (e.g., 'destruction' threats in sadistic sextortion framing).


Validation shape for property destruction threat mechanisms.


Victim refuses demands triggering threat escalation (as in WA case).


Victim reports incident to authorities or trusted adults.


Validation shape for resistance response instances.


Sextortion incident in which the coercive leverage includes threats compelling suffering, submission, or harm (e.g., violence, coerced self-harm, or destruction), often coordinated through organized networks.


Validation shape for sadistic sextortion incidents.


Threat to screenshot images when victim refuses demands (specific to WA case).


Validation shape for screenshot threat instances.


Threat mechanism involving threats that compel or pressure the victim to engage in self-harm as a condition of compliance.


Validation shape for self-harm threat mechanisms.


Communication patterns specific to sextortion incidents.


Validates cross-references between sextortion and related entities.


Online blackmail incident where offender tricks or coerces someone into sending sexual images, then threatens to share unless demands are met. May involve demands for money, gift cards, or more graphic content.


Validation shape for sextortion incident instances.


Investigation specifically focused on sextortion incidents.


Sequential phases of sextortion from initial contact through exploitation.


Phase involving sexually explicit conversations and image solicitation.


Conversation containing sexually explicit content directed at children.


Threat to share intimate images with contacts, family, or publicly.


Victim does not report due to shame, fear, or manipulation.


Sextortion conducted through social media platforms and networks.


Threat to post intimate images on social media platforms.


Validation shape for social media sharing threat instances.


Threat mechanism involving swatting (threatened or induced false emergency report leading to armed law enforcement response) to intimidate or coerce a victim.


Validation shape for swatting threat mechanisms.


Validates temporal consistency in sextortion incidents.


Specific method of threatening or coercing victims using obtained material.


Message containing explicit threats about sharing images.


Phase focused on building trust and rapport with victim.


Process of identifying and locating sextortion victims.


Tactics to isolate victim from support systems and reporting mechanisms.


Pattern of victim response to sextortion attempts.


Validation shape for victim response instances.


Threat mechanism involving threatened physical violence to compel compliance.


Validation shape for violence threat mechanisms.


Actual age of offender (e.g., 20 in WA case).


Links forensic analysis to devices examined.


False age claimed by offender during deception.


Links sextortion incident to digital platform used.


Links sextortion incident to communications involved.


Number of separate conversations identified in investigation.


Length of conversation in number of messages exchanged.


Type of demand made (money, gift cards, more content, meeting).


Number of devices seized for forensic examination (e.g., mobile phone and desktop).


Links incident to specific threat mechanisms used.


Speed of escalation from initial contact to exploitation (rapid, gradual, extended).


Whether evidence was successfully recovered from devices.


Level of sexual explicitness (suggestive, explicit, graphic).


Type of false persona used (peer, romantic interest, authority figure).


Links incident to its progression pattern.


Type of gift cards demanded (iTunes, Steam, Amazon, etc.).


Links victim identification process to identified victims.


Type of images solicited (clothed, suggestive, nude, explicit).


Duration of sextortion incident from initial contact to resolution.


Links sextortion incident to investigation process.


Links sextortion incident to deception tactics used.


Links incident to extortion demands made.


Amount of money demanded in extortion.


Links progression phase to the next phase in sequence.


Links progression phase to the previous phase in sequence.


Current stage in sextortion progression (1-5).


Links sextortion investigation to evidence provided for prosecution.


Links investigation to conversations reconstructed.


Links sextortion incident to resulting criminal charges.


Whether offender followed through on threats.


How specific the threat was (vague, specific, detailed).


Type of threat made (screenshot, sharing, posting, contact family).


Links victim response to the phase it triggers.


Links incident to manipulation tactics employed.


Links incident to platform features exploited.


Age group of victims (e.g., 'under 16', 'teens', 'preteens').


Number of victims involved in sextortion incident (e.g., 3 girls under 16).


A coordinated livestreamed coercion event (ritualized 'show') in which participants celebrate, witness, or pressure harmful acts (e.g., "watch party", "cut show"). This is modeled as an event/action pattern; it is distinct from content artifacts (which should be modeled with production/observable modules as appropriate).


Validation shape for livestreamed coercion show event instances.


A DHS/Know2Protect-defined online group (network/community) engaged in sadistic coercion and exploitation of minors, including coordination across platforms and the use of threats, manipulation, intimidation, and extortion to compel harmful acts and content generation. This class is definitional and does not imply an extremist ideological framework by itself.


Sadistic Online Exploitation Network Shape

Validation shape for SOE network/community instances.


Type of livestreamed coercion show (e.g., watch_party, cut_show, cut_stage, stage).


A slang term used by participants to refer to SOE networks/communities (e.g., "the com").


Links an SOE network/community to a livestreamed coercion show it hosts/coordinates.


Validation shape for affiliate engagement metrics instances.


Validation shape for affiliate joint operation instances.


Validation shape for affiliate network coordination instances.


Validates affiliate organization relationships and status.


Validation shape for affiliate performance assessment instances.


Validation shape for affiliate resource allocation instances.


Validation shape for affiliate resource library instances.


Role of analyst supporting specialized unit operations. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validation shape for child rescue unit instances.


Maryland State Police College Park Barrack supporting computer crimes investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


K9 utilized for community outreach and educational programs. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for community outreach program instances.


Arrest coordinated as part of larger operation. Modeled as gUFO Event.


County-level police department providing support to state computer crimes investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Structured debriefing process following traumatic incidents. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Unit specialized in cyber crime investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validates data quality for specialized units entities.


Trained dog used for detection operations in ICAC investigations. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for detection dog instances.


Detection of electronic storage devices during search operations. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Unit specialized in digital forensics analysis. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


K9 trained to detect electronic storage devices during search operations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for emergency response coordination instances.


Validation shape for high volume operations unit instances.


Validation shape for ICAC affiliate organization instances.


Validation shape for inter-affiliate resource sharing instances.


Situation involving operations across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Program utilizing trained detection dogs for ICAC investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for K9 detection program instances.


Law enforcement officer handling and working with detection dogs. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validates cross-references between K9 operations and related entities.


Search operation utilizing K9 detection capabilities. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for K9 search operation instances.


Training program for K9 units and handlers. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Maryland State Police Computer Crimes Unit

Maryland State Police unit coordinating the Maryland Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Mental health services and support for officers dealing with traumatic content. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Operation involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Complex situation involving coordination between multiple specialized units. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Formally named multi-phase operation with specific objectives. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for named operation instances.


Program providing mental health and wellness support to ICAC officers. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for officer wellness program instances.


Validation shape for ongoing abuse investigation instances.


Phase of post-operation analysis and evaluation. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Phase of active operation execution. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Metrics and performance data for specialized operations. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Phase of operation planning and preparation. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


National operation across 61 ICAC Task Forces during summer months. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Specific operation conducted by Idaho ICAC resulting in 12 arrests. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Peer-to-peer support programs for ICAC personnel. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Prince George's County Police Department supporting Maryland State Police computer crimes investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for professional training event instances.


Validation shape for rapid response team instances.


Validation shape for safety education event instances.


Validation shape for seasonal cyber tip pattern instances.


Validation shape for seasonal operations unit instances.


Validates seasonal operation timing consistency.


Situation requiring deployment of specialized unit capabilities. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Specialized unit with unique capabilities for ICAC investigations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for specialized investigative unit instances.


Role of specialized operator within unit. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validates that specialized units participate in operations.


Regional state police barrack providing local law enforcement support and coordination. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


State police unit specialized in computer crimes and digital investigations involving child exploitation. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Programs and techniques for managing work-related stress. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Unit handling high-risk tactical operations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Role of technical specialist providing specialized capabilities. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validates temporal consistency for operations and events.


Trained therapy dog providing emotional support to officers. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for therapy dog instances.


Unit conducting undercover operations. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Role of commanding officer for specialized unit. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Phase when specialized unit is deployed for operations. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Phase for equipment maintenance and unit readiness. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Phase focused on specialized unit training and preparation. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Unit providing specialized victim services and support. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Regular check on officer mental health and wellbeing. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for wellness check instances.


Validates cross-references for officer wellness programs.


Temporal begin point for named operation.


Temporal end point for named operation.


Temporal begin point for operational phase.


Temporal end point for operational phase.


Temporal begin point for specialized role.


Temporal end point for specialized role.


Temporal begin point for specialized unit operation.


Temporal end point for specialized unit operation.


Duration of named operation.


Duration of operational phase.


Duration of specialized role.


Duration of specialized unit operation.


Validates cross-references between abduction and related entities.


Validation shape for abduction method instances.


Validation shape for abductor profile instances.


Validation shape for alert criteria instances.


Validation shape for Amber Alert instances.


Validates Amber Alert timing consistency.


Validates Amber Alert activation criteria.


Validation shape for behavioral profile instances.


Validates data quality for stranger abductions.


Validation shape for ground search instances.


Validation shape for opportunistic abduction instances.


Validation shape for predatory abduction instances.


Validates victim recovery timing consistency.


Validation shape for rescue operation instances.


Validates search operation resource allocation.


Validation shape for search operation instances.


Validates search operation timing.


Validation shape for stranger abduction instances.


Validates temporal consistency in stranger abductions.


Validation shape for vehicle abduction instances.


Validation shape for victim recovery instances.


Apparent youth or minor status making individual vulnerable to exploitation.


Validation shape for age vulnerability indicator instances.


Use of alcohol to impair victim judgment and facilitate exploitation.


Validation shape for alcohol facilitation instances.


Behavioral patterns indicating vulnerability (isolation, confusion, seeking help).


Behavioral Vulnerability Indicator Shape

Validation shape for behavioral vulnerability indicator instances.


Explicit suggestion that victim can make money by 'selling their body'.


Validation shape for body selling proposition instances.


Approach through seemingly innocent casual conversation to assess vulnerability.


Validation shape for casual conversation approach instances.


Commercial areas with restaurants, shops, and businesses used for recruitment.


Validation shape for commercial district instances.


Validates data quality for street-based recruitment.


Victim reporting that occurs days or weeks after initial incident.


Validation shape for delayed reporting instances.


Targeting individuals based on specific demographic characteristics indicating vulnerability.


Validation shape for demographic targeting instances.


Follow-up through digital communication channels (text, social media, calls).


Validation shape for digital follow-up instances.


Use of digital communication to maintain connection after physical encounter.


Validation shape for digital to physical bridge instances.


Direct approach with immediate commercial sexual proposition.


Validation shape for direct solicitation approach instances.


Explicit, immediate proposition for victim to engage in commercial sexual activity.


Validation shape for direct trafficking proposition instances.


Victim's disclosure of trafficking recruitment or exploitation to law enforcement.


Validation shape for disclosure to authorities instances.


Creation or exploitation of vulnerability through substance administration.


Validation shape for drug-facilitated vulnerability instances.


Presentation of financial benefits and earning potential from commercial sexual activity.


Validation shape for economic incentive presentation instances.


Validates temporal consistency in rapid escalation recruitment.


Victim's attempt to escape from trafficking situation or recruitment.


Validation shape for escape attempt instances.


Direct offer of money in exchange for sexual services or performances.


Validation shape for explicit commercial offer instances.


Validates follow-up timing consistency.


Approach offering food or meals to establish trust and create obligation.


Validation shape for food offer approach instances.


Approach offering assistance such as phone charging, food, transportation, or shelter.


Validation shape for help offer approach instances.


Victim's attempts to seek help or report trafficking recruitment.


Validation shape for help seeking behavior instances.


Public area with high pedestrian traffic used for victim identification.


Validation shape for high traffic area instances.


Location near or alongside highways used for isolated exploitation.


Validation shape for highway location instances.


Attempt to immediately engage victim in commercial sexual activity without extended grooming.


Validation shape for immediate exploitation attempt instances.


Rapid removal of victim from public space to isolated location for exploitation.


Validation shape for immediate isolation instances.


Victim reporting that occurs immediately or within hours of incident.


Validation shape for immediate reporting instances.


Exploitation of victim while impaired by substances to reduce resistance.


Validation shape for impairment exploitation instances.


First contact between trafficker and victim occurring in public space.


Validation shape for initial street contact instances.


Secluded location used for exploitation away from public view.


Validation shape for isolated location instances.


Indicators that individual is alone or lacks social support (walking alone, no companions).


Validation shape for isolation vulnerability indicator instances.


Movement of victim from initial contact location to exploitation location.


Validation shape for location transition instances.


Validates location transition consistency.


Use of marijuana to reduce victim inhibitions and facilitate exploitation.


Validation shape for marijuana facilitation instances.


Targeting specific neighborhoods or geographic areas known for vulnerable populations.


Validation shape for neighborhood targeting instances.


Follow-up contact occurring the day after initial encounter.


Validation shape for next day follow-up instances.


Exploitation of vulnerable individuals encountered in public spaces without prior planning or relationship.


Validation shape for opportunistic exploitation instances.


Continued recruitment attempts after initial rejection of trafficking proposition.


Validation shape for persistence after rejection instances.


Specific pretext offering to charge victim's phone in vehicle or location.


Validation shape for phone charging offer instances.


Physical appearance or condition indicating vulnerability (youth, fatigue, distress).


Validation shape for physical vulnerability indicator instances.


Follow-up contact after initial encounter to reinforce trafficking proposition.


Validation shape for post-contact reinforcement instances.


Initial approach using false pretext or offer of assistance to establish contact.


Validation shape for pretext-based approach instances.


Validates property value ranges and formats.


Direct proposition to engage in prostitution or selling sexual services.


Validation shape for prostitution proposition instances.


Systematic targeting of vulnerable individuals in specific public locations for trafficking recruitment.


Validation shape for public space targeting instances.


Trafficking recruitment with accelerated timeline from initial contact to exploitation attempt.


Validation shape for rapid escalation recruitment instances.


Validates cross-references between recruitment and related entities.


Residential neighborhoods where victims may be walking or living.


Validation shape for residential area instances.


Progression from initial contact to sexual assault and trafficking proposition within same day.


Validation shape for same day progression instances.


Validates same-day progression logic.


Exploitation occurring at secondary location away from initial contact point.


Validation shape for secondary location exploitation instances.


Indicators of economic hardship or social disadvantage (clothing, possessions, location).


Socioeconomic Vulnerability Indicator Shape

Validation shape for socioeconomic vulnerability indicator instances.


Trafficking recruitment occurring in public spaces through direct physical approach and opportunistic exploitation.


Validation shape for street-based recruitment instances.


Specific location where street-based trafficking recruitment occurs.


Validation shape for street recruitment location instances.


Rapid assessment of individual vulnerability factors in public space encounters.


Validation shape for street vulnerability assessment instances.


Specific proposition to engage in stripping or exotic dancing for money.


Validation shape for stripping proposition instances.


Use of substance dependency or impairment to maintain control over victim.


Validation shape for substance-based control instances.


Use of alcohol or drugs to facilitate trafficking recruitment and reduce victim resistance.


Validation shape for substance-facilitated recruitment instances.


Validates temporal consistency in street contacts.


Follow-up through text messaging to reinforce trafficking proposition.


Validation shape for text message follow-up instances.


Repeated presentation of trafficking proposition to overcome initial resistance.


Trafficking Proposition Reinforcement Shape

Validation shape for trafficking proposition reinforcement instances.


Victim's rejection of trafficking proposition or commercial sexual offer.


Validation shape for trafficking proposition rejection instances.


Transportation hubs or transit areas where vulnerable individuals may be targeted.


Validation shape for transit area instances.


Offer of rides or transportation to isolated locations for exploitation.


Validation shape for transportation offer approach instances.


Use of vehicle to isolate victim and transport to exploitation location.


Validation shape for vehicle-based isolation instances.


Vehicle used as location for exploitation or transportation to exploitation site.


Validation shape for vehicle location instances.


Victim's decision to report trafficking recruitment or assault to authorities.


Validation shape for victim reporting instances.


Active resistance to trafficking recruitment attempts or exploitation.


Validation shape for victim resistance instances.


Victim's response to street-based recruitment attempts and trafficking propositions.


Validation shape for victim street response instances.


Vulnerability Assessment Validation Shape

Validates vulnerability assessment completeness.


Observable characteristic or behavior indicating potential trafficking vulnerability.


Validation shape for vulnerability indicator instances.


Neighborhood with high poverty, crime, or social vulnerability targeted by traffickers.


Validation shape for vulnerable neighborhood instances.


Method of substance administration (offered, forced, shared).


Apparent age of victim as assessed by trafficker.


Method used for initial approach (help_offer, casual_conversation, direct_solicitation).


Links trafficker to vulnerability assessment of potential victim.


Duration of initial street contact in minutes.


Initial conversation topic used to establish rapport.


Distance in miles from initial contact to exploitation location.


Observable signs of distress or vulnerability.


Links evidence to street recruitment activity it documents.


Financial incentive presented to victim for commercial sexual activity.


Links initial contact to trafficking proposition escalation.


Time from initial contact to trafficking proposition in hours.


Links victim to vulnerability indicator they exhibit.


Level of explicitness in trafficking proposition (subtle, direct, explicit).


Location where exploitation or assault occurred.


Links recruitment to vulnerability being exploited.


Links transportation method to location transition.


Links recruitment to substance used for facilitation.


Time delay between initial contact and follow-up in hours.


Method used for follow-up contact (text, call, social_media, in_person).


Links trafficker to follow-up contact with victim.


Type of assistance offered (phone_charging, food, ride, shelter).


Level of victim impairment from substances (mild, moderate, severe).


Specific location where initial contact occurred.


Links trafficker to initial street contact with victim.


Links isolation activity to location used for isolation.


Level of victim isolation (alone, with_friends, with_family).


Links trafficker to trafficking proposition made to victim.


Specific amount of money mentioned in trafficking proposition.


Links recruitment activity to location where it occurs.


Level of persistence after initial rejection (low, moderate, high, aggressive).


Links persistence to initial rejection being overcome.


Specific pretext used for initial contact (phone_charging, food_offer, transportation).


Type of trafficking proposition (stripping, prostitution, body_selling).


Number of attempts to reinforce trafficking proposition.


Links follow-up contact to trafficking proposition being reinforced.


Links victim to trafficking proposition they reject.


Time delay between incident and reporting in hours.


Method used for reporting (police_call, in_person, third_party).


Links victim reporting to law enforcement agency.


Level of victim resistance (none, passive, active, aggressive).


Links victim response to trafficking proposition.


Type of victim response (acceptance, rejection, resistance, compliance).


Whether recruitment progressed from contact to proposition within same day.


Type of substance used to facilitate recruitment (marijuana, alcohol, other).


Links street recruitment evidence to criminal charges.


Links recruitment activity to victim being targeted.


Links initial contact location to exploitation location.


Method used to transport victim to exploitation location.


Links initial contact to pretext used for approach.


Observable indicators of victim vulnerability (youth, isolation, distress, poverty).


A first-class, queryable claim extracted from a report (finding, recommendation, distribution, gap, or scope constraint).


A structured observation about a distribution (count/denominator and/or rank) reported by a report.


A stated gap, limitation, or missing intervention area identified by a report.


A locus within the TF-CSEA ecosystem/offending chain that an intervention targets (e.g., grooming, payment systems).


An objective an intervention serves (e.g., CSAM detection, improve policing effectiveness).


A domain of operation for an intervention (e.g., online, hybrid).


A category of TF-CSEA intervention (e.g., technological tools and protocols).


A numbered key finding stated by a report.


A structured statement about methodology (e.g., PRISMA, date range, databases, inclusion criteria).


A conceptual chain of activities in TF-CSEA used to locate interventions.


A stage within an offending chain.


A numbered recommendation stated by a report.


A report or publication treated as a collected source document (an intellectual work), distinct from the concrete artifact(s) that realize it.


A concrete artifact that realizes a Report (e.g., a PDF file). Use this when you want a report-as-file node that is separate from the report-as-intellectual-work.


A figure within a report (e.g., PRISMA diagram, distribution charts).


A logical section of a report (e.g., Synopsis, Methods, Findings).


A research question posed by a report.


A stated boundary on what the report includes/excludes (e.g., out-of-scope topics).


A resolvable pointer to a location in a text artifact (e.g., normalized.txt lines), optionally with quote and quote hash.


Links a claim to entities/concepts it is about.


Links a claim to the report section where it is asserted.


Links a distribution observation to its category (type/operation/objective/locus).


Count value reported for a category.


Denominator / total coded occurrences for the distribution context.


Links an object to a figure that reports it (intended subjects include Claim, DistributionObservation, OffendingChain, and OffendingChainStage).


Digital Object Identifier for a report (if known).


Exact quoted text used to support a claim (optional).


Ordinal number for a key finding.


Optional direct link from a report to claims it contains (findings, recommendations, gaps, scope constraints, etc.).


Links a report to its figures.


Optional direct link from a report to distribution observations it contains.


Links a report to its sections.


Machine-readable statement of what text was hashed for an evidence pointer (e.g., 'exactQuote:unicode:verbatim' meaning the exactQuote literal string hashed as-is, without trimming or normalization).


Optional direct link from a claim/observation to the report containing it.


Links a legal instrument to a jurisdiction where it influenced national law or practice (as reported).


Ending 1-indexed line number in the referenced text artifact.


First line number used by TextEvidencePointer lineStart/lineEnd for the referenced artifact (typically 1).


Line numbering convention used by TextEvidencePointer lineStart/lineEnd (e.g., '1-based').


Starting 1-indexed line number in the referenced text artifact.


Links a report to an organization mentioned in the report text.


Links a stage to the next stage in the chain.


Ending page number in the source PDF (when applicable).


Starting page number in the source PDF (when applicable).


Legacy inline SHA-256 hash of the exactQuote literal string only (optional). Prefer UCO HashFacet attached to TextEvidencePointer for operational data.


Rank order when only relative ordering is reported.


Links a report-as-intellectual-work to a concrete artifact (e.g., a PDF file observable) that realizes it.


Ordinal number for a recommendation.


Links a text evidence pointer to the text artifact it references (e.g., normalized.txt ObservableObject).


1-indexed order of a stage within an offending chain.


Links a claim (or other assertion-like node) to the text evidence pointer supporting it.


Law enforcement operation to apprehend and take suspect into custody. Extends investigation:InvestigativeAction for proper CASE ontology integration.


Validation shape for arrest operation instances.


Formal arrest report documenting the arrest including charges, evidence, and suspect information. Extends investigation:ProvenanceRecord for evidence tracking.


Validation shape for arrest report provenance records.


Situation where suspect has barricaded themselves and refuses to surrender.


Process of booking a suspect into a correctional facility including fingerprinting, photography, and data entry. Extends investigation:InvestigativeAction for CASE ontology integration.


Validation shape for booking actions after arrest.


Specialist responsible for gaining entry through doors, walls, or barriers.


Tool used to gain entry through doors, walls, or barriers.


Validates operation briefing timing.


Specialized communication devices for tactical operations.


Physical correctional facility where suspects are booked and held. Examples include county jails and correctional centers. Extends uco-core:UcoObject as physical location (NOT digital observable).


Validation shape for correctional facilities.


Validates data quality for tactical operations.


Rapid forced entry into a location to apprehend suspects and secure evidence.


Validation shape for electronic surveillance instances.


Arrest operation involving suspects who pose significant threat or flight risk.


Immigration detainer placed on suspect due to immigration status. Links booking to immigration enforcement coordination.


Validation shape for immigration holds on arrested suspects.


Suspect interview conducted after suspect waives right to legal counsel. Extends investigation:InvestigativeAction.


Validation shape for interviews conducted without legal counsel.


Non-lethal weapons for suspect control and compliance.


Information about the physical location of tactical operation.


Validates equipment maintenance timing.


Precision shooter providing overwatch and threat elimination capability.


Specialist trained in crisis negotiation and de-escalation.


Validation shape for operation briefing instances.


Validation shape for post operation report instances.


Armor and protective equipment for tactical team members.


Validation shape for protective gear instances.


Validates risk assessment consistency in tactical plans.


Special Weapons and Tactics team operation for high-risk situations.


Validation shape for search warrant operation instances.


Attempt to negotiate peaceful surrender of barricaded or resistant suspects.


Equipment for monitoring and observing tactical situations.


Validation shape for surveillance operation instances.


Assessment of suspect behavior, capabilities, and threat level.


Validation shape for SWAT team instances.


Senior officer responsible for overall tactical operation command.


Specialized equipment used in tactical operations.


Validation shape for tactical equipment instances.


Validation shape for tactical execution instances.


Specialized law enforcement operation requiring tactical teams and advanced planning.


Tactical Operation Cross Reference Shape

Validates cross-references between tactical operations and related entities.


Validation shape for tactical operation instances.


Validation shape for tactical plan instances.


Law enforcement officer specialized in tactical operations.


Validation shape for tactical team instances.


Validates tactical team certification requirements.


Officer responsible for commanding tactical team operations.


Validates temporal consistency in tactical operations.


Evaluation of potential threats and risks in tactical situation.


Investigative traffic stop used as part of undercover operation or to apprehend suspect. Extends investigation:InvestigativeAction.


Whether formal after-action report was completed.


Type of arrest (warrant_arrest, probable_cause_arrest, consensual_arrest, traffic_stop_arrest, field_arrest, coordinated_arrest).


Whether backup tactical team was on standby.


Links booking action to correctional facility.


Unique booking identifier assigned during intake.


Date and time of booking into facility.


Whether pre-operation briefing was conducted.


Links tactical operation to its commanding officer.


Whether suspect waived right to legal counsel.


Links equipment to the operation where it was used.


Method used to gain entry (dynamic, deliberate, negotiated, stealth).


Category of tactical equipment.


Whether civilian evacuation was necessary.


Name of the correctional facility (e.g., 'Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center').


Type of correctional facility (county_jail, state_prison, federal_prison, detention_center, holding_facility).


Assessment of suspect's likelihood to flee.


Level of force employed (none, minimal, moderate, significant).


Links arrest operation to its formal arrest report.


Links booking to immigration hold status.


Agency requesting the immigration hold (e.g., ICE).


Immigration status of the suspect.


Links arrest to prior traffic stop that provided suspect identification. Uses CASE investigation:wasInformedBy pattern.


Whether any injuries occurred during operation.


Whether media was present during operation.


Whether Miranda rights were read to suspect.


Nationality of the suspect subject to immigration hold.


Whether negotiation was attempted during standoff.


Duration of negotiation attempts (in hours).


Result of negotiation (successful_surrender, failed, partial_compliance).


Links equipment to the team member who operated it.


Legal authorization for tactical operation.


Total duration of tactical operation (in hours).


Physical location where tactical operation takes place.


Result of tactical operation (successful, partial, failed, aborted).


Type of tactical operation (raid, arrest, rescue, standoff_resolution).


Links operation to participating tactical team members.


Whether security perimeter was established around operation area.


Time spent planning the tactical operation (in hours).


Whether property damage occurred during operation.


Whether operation posed threat to public safety.


Level of suspect resistance (none, passive, active, violent).


Whether resistance was expected during arrest.


Links arrest operation to the booking action.


Assessed risk level of the operation (low, medium, high, extreme).


Whether special authorization was required for operation.


Duration of barricade standoff situation (in hours).


Assessment of suspect's suicide risk.


Number of suspects arrested during operation.


Number of individuals targeted for arrest.


Number of tactical team members deployed.


Assessed threat level (low, moderate, high, extreme).


Assessment of whether force used was justified.


Types of weapons deployed during operation.


Whether weapons were expected during arrest.


Whether suspect may possess weapons.


Unit specializing in data analysis and intelligence gathering.


Year-specific performance metrics for task force operations.


Metrics tracking arrests made by task force operations.


Phase involving post-operation assessment and evaluation.


State attorney general office hosting ICAC task force (Idaho AG, Illinois AG, Texas AG, etc.).


California's 5-region ICAC system: Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose areas.


Validation shape for certification instances.


Validates certification date consistency.


Validates task force commander requirements.


Formal mechanism for coordinating task force activities.


Phase focused on inter-agency coordination and resource sharing.


ICAC task force hosted by and primarily serving specific county jurisdiction.


Metrics tracking CyberTip processing and analysis by task force.


Validates data quality for task forces.


Phase involving deployment of personnel and resources.


Specialized unit focused on digital evidence acquisition and analysis.


District or county attorney office hosting ICAC task force (Delaware County DA, Cook County SA, etc.).


Sharing of specialized equipment or technology.


Validates task force establishment date.


Phase involving active execution of task force operations.


Sharing of specialized knowledge or technical expertise.


Federal-level ICAC task force for complex or multi-jurisdictional cases.


Florida's 3-region ICAC system: Central, Northern, Southern regions.


Governor's Office Crime Prevention Funding

State-level funding provided by Governor's Office for Crime Prevention and Policy for ICAC task force operations.


Long-term historical performance data for task force operations.


Internet Crimes Against Children task force unit specializing in child exploitation investigations.


Validation shape for ICAC task force instances.


Illinois state ICAC task force with specialized capabilities and extensive network partnerships.


Sharing of intelligence and investigative information.


Coordination mechanism between different law enforcement agencies.


Operation involving multiple task forces or agencies.


Validation shape for joint operation instances.


Local or regional ICAC task force unit.


Local police department hosting ICAC task force (Phoenix PD, Los Angeles PD, San Jose PD, etc.).


Maryland state ICAC task force coordinated by Maryland State Police Computer Crimes Unit with Governor's Office for Crime Prevention and Policy funding.


Validates task force membership consistency.


ICAC task force covering major metropolitan area (Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, NYC).


ICAC task force for U.S. Armed Forces military branches with specialized military jurisdiction.


State with multiple ICAC task forces covering different geographic regions.


National ICAC hotline (877-798-7682) for general information and coordination.


Comprehensive directory of all 61 ICAC task forces across the United States, territories, and military branches.


Performance metrics for multi-agency network coordination.


New York's 2-region ICAC system: Statewide and New York City area.


Validation shape for performance metrics instances.


Validation shape for personnel allocation instances.


Sharing of specialized personnel between task forces.


Phase involving operational planning and resource allocation.


Proactive operation to identify and investigate potential offenders.


Operation in response to specific tips or reports.


Coordination mechanism for regional task force activities.


ICAC task force covering specific geographic region within a state.


Coordination mechanism between multiple task forces within the same state.


Validation shape for resource allocation instances.


Sharing of resources, personnel, or expertise between task forces.


County sheriff's office hosting ICAC task force (Fresno County SO, Broward County SO, etc.).


Specialized unit within ICAC task force focused on specific aspects of investigations.


Other state agency hosting ICAC task force (Delaware DOJ, Hawaii DOA, etc.).


State bureau of investigation hosting ICAC task force (Georgia BIA, North Carolina SBI, etc.).


State-level ICAC task force coordinating regional investigations.


Combined funding from state Governor's Office and federal DOJ grants for task force operations.


State police agency hosting ICAC task force (Maryland State Police, Connecticut State Police, etc.).


ICAC task force with statewide jurisdiction and coordination responsibility.


Large-scale coordinated operation targeting multiple suspects.


Unit handling high-risk arrests and tactical operations.


Formal alliance between multiple ICAC task forces.


Analyst specializing in ICAC intelligence and data analysis.


Command-level officer responsible for task force operations.


Validation shape for task force commander instances.


Contact information for ICAC task force including phone, email, and website.


Coordinator responsible for inter-agency cooperation and resource management.


Validates cross-references between task force and related entities.


Digital forensic examiner specializing in ICAC evidence.


Organization that hosts and coordinates an ICAC task force.


Dedicated phone line for ICAC task force operations and reporting.


Investigator specializing in ICAC cases and child exploitation.


Individual member of an ICAC task force with specialized training.


Validation shape for task force member instances.


Performance metrics and statistics for ICAC task force operations.


Coordinated operation conducted by ICAC task force.


Validation shape for task force operation instances.


Validation shape for task force instances.


Official website for ICAC task force with resources and information.


Validates temporal consistency in task force memberships.


Texas's 3-region ICAC system: Statewide, Dallas, Houston areas.


Validation shape for training program instances.


Metrics tracking training and education reach to professionals and community.


Unit responsible for training and education of task force members.


Unit specializing in undercover operations and online investigations.


Unit providing specialized services and support to child victims.


Links task force to national hotline for general access.


Number of agencies participating in the task force.


Type of partner agency (local, county, state, federal).


Total arrests made since 2006 (Illinois: 1,990+).


Total arrests made since 2019 (Illinois: 600+).


Links task force member to their assigned unit.


Level of capability (basic, intermediate, advanced, expert).


Certification status (certified, pending, expired, not_certified).


Whether certification is currently valid.


Links task force member to certification programs completed.


Links task force to other task forces they collaborate with.


Links task force to its commander.


Completion rate for training program (percentage).


Links operation to task force that conducted it.


Links task force to its coordinator.


Links task force to coordination mechanism used.


Links regional task forces that coordinate within the same state.


Links military task force to civilian task forces for coordination.


Duration of coordination mechanism.


Level of coordination (local, county, state, federal).


Model for coordinating between regional task forces (hub_spoke, peer_to_peer, hierarchical).


Name of primary county served by task force.


Geographic area covered by the task force.


Type of geographic coverage (statewide, regional, metropolitan, county).


Number of CyberTips successfully processed and analyzed.


Total number of CyberTips received by task force.


Total CyberTips received since 2019 (Illinois: 35,000+).


Whether task force receives DOJ grant funding.


Contact email address for task force.


Date when the task force was established.


Experience level in ICAC investigations (novice, experienced, expert, master).


Links task force to federal law enforcement partners.


Links task force to investigation they handled.


Links task force to its contact information.


Links task force to its members.


Links task force to its performance metrics.


Temporal begin point for operation phase.


Temporal end point for operation phase.


Links multi-regional state to its regional task forces.


Temporal begin point for task force role.


Temporal end point for task force role.


Links task force to its specialized units.


Jurisdiction level of host organization (federal, state, county, local, military).


Type of organization hosting task force (state_police, local_police, sheriff, state_bureau, attorney_general, district_attorney, state_agency, military).


Links task force to its hosting organization.


Links hosting organization to its ICAC task force.


Type of hotline service (tip_line, general_contact, emergency, referral).


Links national directory to all ICAC task forces in the network.


Links operation to specialized unit involved.


Population covered by task force jurisdiction.


Links member to unit they lead.


Links task force to local law enforcement partners.


Links task force to website it maintains.


Links regional task force to coordination mechanism.


Links metrics to the task force they measure.


Number of active members in the task force.


Role within the task force (commander, coordinator, investigator, analyst, examiner).


Name of metropolitan area covered (e.g., 'Los Angeles', 'Dallas-Fort Worth', 'Houston').


Military branches covered by task force (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Space Force).


Type of military jurisdiction (worldwide, conus, oconus, base_specific).


Percentage of US geographic coverage by ICAC network (100%).


National ICAC hotline number (877-798-7682).


Whether task force is part of national network (61 total).


Links task force to hotline it operates.


Duration of operation in days.


Outcome of operation (successful, partially_successful, unsuccessful).


Duration of operation phase.


Scale of operation (local, regional, national, international).


Type of task force operation (joint, sweep, proactive, reactive).


Official name of hosting organization.


Number of parents reached through safety education.


Links task force member to operation they participated in.


Number of units participating in operation.


Number of partner agencies in task force network (Illinois: 175+).


Links task force to partner organizations.


Time period covered by historical metrics (e.g., 'Since 2019', 'Since 2006').


Contact phone number for task force.


Number of law enforcement professionals trained.


Links regional task force to geographic area it covers.


Links task force to training programs it provides.


Links task force member to training received.


Geographic region covered by task force (e.g., 'Central', 'Northern', 'Southern', 'Los Angeles Area').


Number of ICAC task forces in multi-regional state (CA: 5, FL: 3, TX: 3, NY: 2).


Year for which performance metrics are reported.


Available resource capacity (limited, moderate, high, extensive).


Links county-based task force to county served.


Links metropolitan task force to metropolitan area served.


Links military task force to military branch it serves.


Number of sexual predator arrests made by task force.


Links task force to resource sharing arrangement.


Type of sharing agreement (formal, informal, emergency).


Duration of resource sharing in months.


Type of resource sharing (personnel, equipment, expertise, intelligence).


Area of specialization (forensics, undercover, victim_services, analytics, tactical).


Number of states with multiple regional task forces (CA, FL, TX, NY, VA, IL).


Number of students reached through safety education.


Links specialized unit to investigation they supported.


Unique identifier for the ICAC task force.


Position within national network (e.g., '1 of 61').


Number of teachers reached through safety education.


Total number of ICAC task forces in national directory (61 total).


Duration of training in hours.


Type of training (basic, advanced, specialized, certification).


Official website URL for task force.


Percentage increase from previous year (Illinois 2022: 26%).


Years of service in ICAC task force work.


Age of a person modeled as a gUFO Quality whose concrete value is attributed in time-bounded situations. Intended for age-of-consent, Romeo-and-Juliet, and other age-dependent legal reasoning.


gUFO QualityValueAttributionSituation specializing in attribution of an Age quality value to a specific person over a time-bounded interval (e.g., the victim was 13 years old during a 2025 grooming event).


Event transitioning investigation from Initial to Analysis Phase.


Event transitioning investigation from Resolution to Completed Phase.


Situation where multiple investigations run simultaneously, potentially sharing resources or evidence. Modeled as gUFO Situation with temporal overlap constraints.


Ordered sequence of investigation events with temporal dependencies. Modeled as gUFO structured event pattern.


Deadline by which digital evidence must be preserved to maintain legal admissibility.


Event transitioning investigation from Legal Process to Evidence Phase.


Event transitioning investigation from non-existence to Initial Phase.


Complete temporal structure of ICAC investigation from initiation to closure. Modeled as gUFO Kind with definite phase sequence and temporal constraints.


Event transitioning investigation from Analysis to Legal Process Phase.


Situation where investigation requires coordination across multiple jurisdictions with timing synchronization. Modeled as gUFO Situation with coordination constraints.


Set of investigation events occurring simultaneously or with temporal overlap. Modeled as gUFO composite event pattern.


Situation where multiple evidence collection activities occur simultaneously across different phases. Modeled as gUFO Situation allowing phase overlap.


Event marking transition between investigation phases. Modeled as gUFO Event with temporal boundaries and phase change effects.


Event transitioning investigation from Evidence to Resolution Phase.


Event causing investigation to exit suspended state and resume active phase. Modeled as gUFO Event terminating suspension situation.


Situation where person's multiple roles create potential conflict of interest. Modeled as gUFO Situation requiring resolution.


Role transition involving increased responsibility or authority (e.g., analyst to lead investigator).


Role transition involving change in assignment without authority change (e.g., different investigator).


Event representing change in person's role within investigation. Modeled as gUFO Event with role change effects.


Situation where person plays multiple roles simultaneously in investigation context. Modeled as gUFO Situation with role overlap.


Legal deadline by which charges must be filed or case becomes time-barred.


Situation where investigation is temporarily suspended pending resources, legal decisions, or external factors. Modeled as gUFO Situation with temporal duration.


Event causing investigation to enter suspended state. Modeled as gUFO Event creating suspension situation.


Accelerated investigation lifecycle for urgent child rescue situations. Compressed phase durations with parallel processing.


Date when search warrant expires and execution must be completed.


Links an Age At Time Situation to the person whose age is being asserted in that situation.


Specialization of gufo:concernsQualityType making explicit that an Age At Time Situation attributes a value for the Age quality type.


Links suspension event to suspended situation it creates.


Total duration investigation was in active state (excluding suspended periods).


Numeric age in years attributed to a person in an Age At Time Situation (non-negative, may be fractional for finer-grained analytics).


Links investigation event to consequent event that must follow its completion.


Legal deadline by which investigation phase must be completed (e.g., statute of limitations, warrant expiration).


Maximum allowable duration for investigation phase based on legal or policy constraints.


Minimum required duration for investigation phase based on legal or procedural requirements.


Links investigation event to other events that can occur simultaneously.


Links investigation event to prerequisite event that must complete before it can begin.


Total duration investigation was in suspended state.


Duration from investigation initiation to first investigative action.


Total duration from investigation initiation to resolution.


Typical expected duration for investigation phase based on historical patterns.


Percentage of phase objectives completed within time period (0.0-1.0).


Efficiency ratio of phase (actual duration / typical duration).


Links resumption event to investigation it resumes.


Links suspension event to investigation it suspends.


Links investigation event/phase to temporally contained event/phase.


Links investigation event/phase to temporally overlapping event/phase.


Links investigation event/phase to temporally subsequent event/phase.


Links resumption event to suspended situation it terminates.


Links phase transition event to source phase.


Links phase transition event to target phase.


Links investigation event to phase transition it triggers.


Urgency level of investigation phase (1-5 scale, 5=critical/immediate).


Validates phase performance metrics such as efficiency and completion rate.


Validates duration, deadline, and urgency properties on gUFO phases as introduced by the CAC temporal module.


Ensures that every PhaseTransitionEvent has exactly one source and one target phase.


Validates links from ResumptionEvent to the resumed investigation and the terminated suspension situation.


Validates links from SuspensionEvent to the suspended investigation and the created suspension situation.


Role of adult being sex trafficked through force, fraud, or coercion. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Vulnerability profile for youth aging out of foster care system.


Supporting role in trafficking operation, assisting primary traffickers. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Forced engagement in commercial sexual activities for the traffickers' profit. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Maintenance of victim control across multiple jurisdictions through coordinated trafficking network. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Phase when trafficking enterprise faces law enforcement intervention.


Collection of money earned through victim exploitation by trafficking operation. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Initial phase of trafficking enterprise formation and recruitment setup.


Phase of trafficking enterprise growth, adding victims and locations.


Role managing financial aspects including collecting earnings and money laundering. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Transportation of trafficking victims across state lines for commercial sexual exploitation. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Role of minor (under 18) being sex trafficked. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role. Concrete victim age at specific trafficking operations SHOULD be represented using cacontology-temporal:AgeAtTimeSituation instances linked to the victim person, allowing precise modeling of age-of-consent, enhanced-penalty, and related legal thresholds.


Complex situation involving trafficking operations across multiple jurisdictions requiring coordinated law enforcement response.


Criminal conspiracy spanning multiple states for trafficking operations (e.g., Brooklyn-North Carolina network). Modeled as gUFO Event.


Response to situations where victims are identified as being in ongoing danger from traffickers. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Active operational phase of trafficking enterprise with established victim control.


Leading role in trafficking operation, often controlling multiple victims and coordinating activities. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Role focused on recruiting and grooming new victims for trafficking. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Vulnerability profile for runaway or homeless youth targeted by traffickers.


Role of individual involved in sex trafficking operations. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Smaller operational unit within trafficking ring, often controlling specific victims or geographic areas. Modeled as specialized gUFO Organization.


Criminal organization engaged in systematic sex trafficking operations with multiple defendants and coordinated activities. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Organizational structure within trafficking enterprise defining roles and authority levels.


Complex situation encompassing active trafficking network operations across multiple jurisdictions.


Coordinated trafficking activity involving multiple perpetrators, victims, and locations. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Coordinated group of traffickers operating across multiple jurisdictions with shared victims and resources (e.g., 8-defendant Brooklyn case). Modeled as specialized gUFO Organization.


Specialized rescue operation for trafficking victims involving multiple agencies and victim services. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Role of person being exploited through sex trafficking. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Role focused on transporting victims between locations for trafficking purposes. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Methods used to maintain psychological and physical control over trafficking victims. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Ongoing situation of psychological and physical control maintained over trafficking victims.


Emergency response to 911 calls from trafficking victims seeking help. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Process of identifying, targeting, and acquiring new victims for trafficking operations. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Systematic movement of victims between different locations to avoid detection and maintain control. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Assessment of victim safety and ongoing threats from trafficking network. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Transportation of trafficking victims between locations for commercial sexual exploitation. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Profile of factors that make individuals vulnerable to trafficking recruitment. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Links trafficker role to victim role under their control.


Links operation to jurisdictions crossed during execution.


Destination location for victim transportation event.


Dollar amount collected from victim exploitation.


Time period over which earnings were collected.


Duration of trafficking enterprise operations.


Links victim control event to specific method used.


Temporal begin point for trafficking enterprise operations.


Temporal end point for trafficking enterprise operations.


Links trafficking enterprise to its operational phases.


Numerical hierarchy level within trafficking enterprise (1=top level).


Temporal begin point for trafficking enterprise phase.


Temporal end point for trafficking enterprise phase.


Temporal begin point for trafficking role.


Temporal end point for trafficking role.


Number of jurisdictions involved in trafficking situation.


Number of traffickers involved in trafficking situation.


Number of victims involved in trafficking situation.


Links trafficking organization to jurisdictions where it operates.


Starting location for victim transportation event.


Duration of trafficking enterprise phase.


Links multi-jurisdictional situation to required coordination mechanisms.


Duration of individual's trafficking role.


Complexity level of trafficking situation (1-5 scale).


Links one enterprise phase to the next phase in sequence.


Method or vehicle used for victim transportation.


Links victim recruitment to specific vulnerability profile exploited.


Validates core financial properties for earnings collection events.


Validates basic complexity and count metrics for multi-jurisdictional trafficking situations.


Validates that trafficker roles are modeled as gUFO roles with optional hierarchy and control properties.


Validates core temporal and jurisdictional properties for trafficking enterprises modeled as gUFO organizations.


Minimal temporal validation for trafficking operations modeled as gUFO events.


Validates temporal role properties for trafficking victim roles.


Validates origin, destination, and method properties for victim transportation events.


Phase of participant assessment and competency evaluation. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Partner organization supporting capacity building efforts. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Structured program for building organizational and individual capacity. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for capacity building program instances.


Situation focused on building institutional and individual capacity for child protection. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Capacity Building Target Validation Shape

Validates that capacity building programs have target organizations.


Validation shape for capacity impact instances.


Validates capacity level requirements for specialized training.


Organization responsible for professional certification. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Phase of awarding certifications and credentials. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Validates certification status consistency.


Validates that certifications have certifying bodies.


Validates certification validity periods.


Professional who has achieved certification. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Training focused on child protection methodologies. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for child protection training instances.


Validation shape for community engagement metrics instances.


Assessment of professional competencies acquired through training. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for competency assessment instances.


Phase of developing training content and materials. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Ongoing education for certified professionals. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for continuing education instances.


Training for criminal justice professionals on child protection. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for criminal justice training instances.


Validates that curricula include training modules.


Validates data quality for training entities.


Training on digital forensics techniques for child protection cases. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for digital forensics training instances.


Validation shape for global training reach instances.


Situation involving global training initiatives across multiple countries and organizations. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Training for hotline operators and managers. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for hotline training instances.


Training combining online and in-person delivery. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for hybrid training instances.


Training delivered in physical classroom settings. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for in-person training instances.


Trainer delivering international training programs. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Training program conducted across multiple countries. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for international training instances.


Training on investigation methodologies and techniques. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for investigation training instances.


Validation shape for K9 program metrics instances.


Training on legal aspects of child protection. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for legal training instances.


One-on-one mentorship for professional development. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for mentorship program instances.


Validates consistency between related metrics.


Situation involving training coordination between multiple stakeholder organizations. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Training delivered through online platforms. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for online training instances.


Validation shape for operational training metrics instances.


Validation shape for outreach event metrics instances.


Formal certification for child protection professionals. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for professional certification instances.


Career development for child protection professionals. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for professional development instances.


Validation shape for professional training metrics instances.


Phase of training program planning and curriculum development. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Program focused on developing specific professional skills. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Validation shape for skills development program instances.


Validation of skills acquired through training programs. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for skills validation instances.


Expert providing specialized knowledge in training. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validates temporal consistency for training programs.


Certificate awarded upon successful completion of training. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for training certificate instances.


Coordinator responsible for organizing training programs. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Structured curriculum for child protection training. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for training curriculum instances.


Phase of active training delivery and instruction. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Phase.


Validates that training programs have delivery mechanisms.


Validation shape for training effectiveness instances.


Validates training effectiveness metrics.


Institution providing child protection training. Modeled as gUFO Organization.


Metrics measuring training effectiveness and reach. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for training metrics instances.


Individual training module covering specific topics. Modeled as gUFO Object.


Validation shape for training module instances.


Professional participating in training programs. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Validates training reach consistency by delivery method.


Training for professionals providing victim services. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Validation shape for victim service training instances.


Assessment conducted for training participant.


Organization for which capacity is being built.


Level of capacity being built (basic, intermediate, advanced, expert).


Status of professional certification (active, expired, suspended).


Validity period of certification in months.


Organization providing the certification.


Level of competency achieved (novice, competent, proficient, expert).


Rate of completion for training program (0.0-1.0).


Trainer delivering the training program.


Temporal begin point for training phase.


Temporal end point for training phase.


Temporal begin point for training role.


Temporal end point for training role.


Temporal begin point for training program.


Temporal end point for training program.


Area of proficiency improved by training.


Training module included in curriculum.


Number of public presentations featuring K9 units.


Number of search warrants where K9 units provided assistance.


Participant being mentored by trainer.


Number of times training was applied in operational deployments.


Number of community outreach events conducted.


Training program participated in by a person.


Rate of participation in training program (0.0-1.0).


Duration of training phase.


Total number of professionals trained.


Number of professionals trained in specialized programs.


Duration of individual's training role.


Description of skills acquired through training.


Partner supporting the training program.


Total number of community members reached through outreach events.


Duration of training program from start to completion.


Effectiveness score of training program (0.0-1.0).


Language in which training is delivered.


Number of participants reached by training program.


Effectiveness ratio of training application in operations (0.0-1.0).


Participant whose skills are being validated.


Photographic evidence of minor victims posted in trafficking advertisements.


Suspect explicitly acknowledging the stated age of the minor persona during communication.


Validation shape for suspect acknowledgments of minor's age.


Undercover operation using residential apartment as location for sting operation targeting trafficking clients.


Evidence of traffickers forcing victims to undress in bathrooms or other private areas.


Agent specialized in chat-based undercover investigations for predator identification.


Undercover operation involving infiltration of online chat rooms or messaging platforms to investigate criminal activity.


Undercover identity portraying a minor child for investigative purposes.


Interception of phone communications between traffickers, victims, and clients.


Undercover response to trafficking advertisement posing as potential client to gather evidence.


Validates evidence collection date consistency.


Planned in-person meeting between undercover agents and suspects under controlled conditions.


Validation shape for covert recording instances.


Suspect agreeing to bring items for abuse (condoms, vape, alcohol, etc.).


Validation shape for suspect agreements to bring items for abuse.


Request or instruction from suspect to undercover agent to commit illegal acts.


Validates data quality for undercover operations.


Validation shape for digital identity instances.


Suspect requesting alleged minor wear disguise items (sunglasses, etc.) to avoid detection.


Validation shape for suspect requests for victim to wear disguise items.


Validates evidence chain of custody requirements.


Phase focused on collecting criminal evidence through undercover interactions.


Suspect requesting explicit pictures or content from undercover persona.


Validation shape for suspect requests for explicit content.


Phase involving safe withdrawal from undercover operation.


Hotel used or intended for sexual exploitation of minors. Physical location.


Validation shape for hotel meeting location instances.


Targeting individuals who seek to arrange in-person meetings with minors for illegal purposes.


Statement made by suspect that provides evidence of criminal intent or past crimes.


Phase involving initial contact and establishment of undercover presence.


Real-time monitoring of trafficking advertisements to identify and respond to active postings.


Physical location arranged for meeting with alleged minor. Extends uco-location:Location as this represents a physical place.


Suspect arranging specific meeting location (motel, hotel, other private location).


Validation shape for suspect arrangements of meeting locations.


Validation shape for meeting location instances used in undercover operations.


Undercover agent operating with minor persona identity on social media platforms.


Undercover operation where agents pose as minors to identify individuals seeking inappropriate contact.


Motel used or intended for sexual exploitation of minors (e.g., 'Princess Motel'). Physical location.


Validation shape for motel meeting location instances.


Undercover operation conducted across multiple social media platforms simultaneously.


Undercover operation where agent poses as multiple fictitious minors (e.g., 14-year-old and 12-year-old sisters). Extends MinorPersonaOperation.


Validation shape for undercover operations using multiple minor personas.


Covert monitoring of online platforms for criminal activity without direct participation.


Validation shape for online undercover operation instances.


Validates cross-references between operation and related entities.


Supervising officer responsible for managing undercover operations and agent safety.


Validation shape for operation monitoring instances.


Validation shape for operation plan instances.


Validation shape for operation termination instances.


Evidence collected during undercover operations including recordings, communications, and observations.


Undercover identity portraying a parent or guardian of a child victim.


Monitoring and interception of phone communications used to instruct victims in trafficking operations.


Undercover operation conducted at physical location to apprehend suspects responding to trafficking advertisements.


Validates operation plan approval requirements.


Account created on digital platforms for undercover operations.


Undercover operation specifically targeting online predators who seek contact with children.


Phase involving setup of undercover identities and operational planning.


Investigation of trafficking activities involving forced undressing and privacy violations.


Residential property (apartment, house, etc.) used as staging area for undercover sting operations.


Validation shape for risk assessment instances.


Validation shape for safety protocol instances.


Explicit statement by suspect expressing intent to engage in sexual acts with alleged minor.


Validation shape for explicit sexual intent statements by suspects.


Short-term rental property (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.) used for sexual exploitation. Physical location.


Validation shape for short-term rental meeting location instances.


Undercover operation where agent creates related minor personas (siblings).


Validation shape for undercover operations using related sibling personas.


Agent specialized in social media platform undercover operations.


Undercover operation conducted on social media platforms to identify predators seeking to meet children.


Coordinated undercover operation designed to catch suspects in the act of committing crimes.


Position maintained by backup officers for observation and safety during physical sting operations.


Base class for criminal communication actions initiated by suspect during undercover operation.


Validation shape for criminal communication actions by suspects.


Personnel providing technical infrastructure and monitoring for undercover operations.


Validates temporal consistency in undercover operations.


Suspect arranging to pick up and transport alleged minor to meeting location.


Validation shape for suspect arrangements to transport alleged minor.


Law enforcement officer or authorized civilian operating under false identity in an investigation.


Investigation using chat communications on various platforms with agents posing as minors.


Communication conducted while using an undercover identity.


Validation shape for undercover evidence instances.


A fictitious identity created and maintained by law enforcement for undercover operations.


Validation shape for undercover identity instances.


A law enforcement operation using false identities or covert methods to investigate crimes and gather evidence.


Validation shape for undercover operation instances.


Evidence of traffickers providing phones and instructions to victims for client communication.


Suspect requesting video call with undercover persona, often to confirm alone or for explicit purposes.


Validation shape for suspect requests for video calls.


Undercover operation responding to existing trafficking advertisements posted by suspects.


Number of times suspect acknowledged the stated age.


Duration the trafficking advertisement was active before response in hours.


Web address of trafficking advertisement being responded to.


Age that was explicitly stated to the suspect.


Links agent to persona or identity used in operation.


Type of residential property used for sting (studio, one_bedroom, two_bedroom, etc.).


Links a meeting location arrangement action to the meeting location.


Date and time arranged for meeting.


Biographical details created for the undercover identity.


Whether a backup/surveillance team was assigned to the operation.


Total duration of chat investigation in hours.


Type of chat platform used (social_media, messaging_app, gaming_platform, forum).


Stated topic or theme of the chat room being infiltrated.


Method victims are instructed to use for client communication (phone, text, app).


Primary method of communication (text_chat, voice_chat, video_chat, direct_message).


Digital platform where undercover communication took place.


Links undercover operation to social media platform used.


Whether the communication contains content of criminal nature.


Number of separate conversations conducted during chat investigation.


Time period during which the undercover operation was active.


Destination where suspect planned to take alleged minor (motel, hotel, residence).


Item requested for disguise (sunglasses, hat, hoodie).


Stated or implied purpose for disguise request (avoid_detection, conceal_identity).


Links violation evidence to specific location where violation occurred.


Predetermined signal or code word for emergency situations.


Evidence gathered during the undercover operation.


Assessment of the communication's value as evidence (high, medium, low).


Floor level of apartment used in sting operation for tactical planning.


Links undercover operation to evidence generated.


Links an undercover operation to its supervising handler.


Temporal begin point for undercover operation phase.


Temporal end point for undercover operation phase.


Temporal begin point for undercover role.


Temporal end point for undercover role.


Whether the sting location has secure exit routes for officer safety.


Success rate for identifying and prosecuting predators (0.0-1.0).


Links undercover operation to predator identified.


Links advertisement evidence to specific victim photographs identified.


Length of time the agent spent in the chat room (in hours).


Type of instruction provided to victim (client_communication, pricing, location, safety).


Links monitoring operation to specific trafficking instructions intercepted.


Links investigation to specific privacy violation being investigated.


Links social media operation to chat investigation component.


Items suspect agreed to bring (condoms, vape, alcohol, etc.).


Court order or warrant authorizing the undercover operation.


Links meeting arrangement to resulting arrest operation.


Additional investigative leads generated by the undercover operation.


Links chat investigation to in-person meeting solicitation identified.


Name of the meeting location (e.g., 'Princess Motel').


Links sting operation to surveillance positions maintained by backup officers.


Name of specific meeting location (e.g., 'Princess Motel').


Type of meeting location arranged (motel, hotel, residence, vehicle, outdoor).


Number of in-person meeting solicitation attempts identified.


Links investigation to phone communications being monitored.


Links suspect communication action to the undercover operation.


Links physical sting operation to specific location where it occurs.


Links an undercover agent to the false identity they are using.


Security classification level of the undercover operation.


Result of the undercover operation (successful, compromised, terminated, ongoing).


Duration of undercover operation phase.


Number of active participants in the chat room.


Age of minor persona used by undercover agent.


Number of distinct minor personas used in the operation.


Gender of minor persona used by undercover agent.


Geographic location represented by minor persona.


Detailed profile information for minor persona (interests, background, characteristics).


Phone number under surveillance for trafficking instruction calls.


Location where suspect agreed to pick up alleged minor.


Username used for the undercover identity on digital platforms.


The age that the undercover identity claims to be.


Number of contact attempts by potential predators during operation.


Age of the primary minor persona.


Type of explicit content requested (images, videos, video_call).


Links undercover operation to specific trafficking advertisement being responded to.


Room or unit number at the meeting location.


Safety measures implemented for the undercover operation.


Age of the secondary minor persona (e.g., younger sibling).


Types of sexual acts explicitly stated by suspect (vaginal, oral, anal, etc.).


Relationship between personas (e.g., 'sisters', 'brothers').


Number of different social media platforms used in undercover operation.


Administrative approval from law enforcement supervisors.


Number of surveillance officers assigned to the sting operation.


Type of behavior targeted (in_person_meeting_solicitation, sexual_conversation, grooming, image_requests).


Whether suspect expressed intent toward both minor personas in sibling operation.


Links predator targeting operation to specific individuals targeted.


Links an undercover operation to the suspect being investigated.


Links communication action to the message that triggered it.


Links operation to minor persona used by agent.


Number of victim photographs identified in trafficking advertisement.


Specific location where privacy violation occurred (bathroom, bedroom, changing_area).


Type of privacy violation investigated (forced_undressing, inappropriate_touching, voyeurism).


Name of website platform hosting the trafficking advertisement.


Whether request was conditional on parent being absent.


Validation shape for account linking instances.


Validates that tip analysis references valid reports.


Validation shape for CSAM solicitation annotation instances.


Validation shape for child sex tourism incident instances.


Validation shape for child sex trafficking incident instances.


Validates confidence level consistency.


Validation shape for content identification instances.


Validates cooperation level consistency with data provided.


Validation shape for CyberTip analysis instances.


Validates data quality for NCMEC entities.


Validation shape for federal referral instances.


Validation shape for investigation trigger instances.


Validation shape for local law enforcement referral instances.


Minor to Minor Interaction Annotation Shape

Validation shape for minor to minor interaction annotation instances.


Validation shape for NCMEC Cybertip report instances.


Validation shape for NCMEC incident type instances.


Validation shape for NCMEC report annotation instances.


Validation shape for online enticement incident instances.


Validation shape for phone number trace instances.


Platform Cooperation Cross Reference Shape

Validates that platform cooperation involves digital services.


Validation shape for platform cooperation instances.


Validation shape for possession indicator instances.


Validates that investigation triggers occur after tip processing.


Validates processing time reasonableness.


Report Incident Type Cross Reference Shape

Validates that NCMEC reports have appropriate incident types.


Validation shape for sextortion annotation instances.


Validation shape for spam annotation instances.


Validation shape for task force referral instances.


Validates temporal consistency for NCMEC operations.


Validation shape for tip enrichment instances.


Validation shape for tip prioritization instances.


Validation shape for tip processing instances.


Validation shape for tip validation instances.


Validation shape for transfer detection instances.


Trigger Investigation Cross Reference Shape

Validates that investigation triggers result in investigations.


Validates urgency level consistency with trigger criteria.


Process of linking digital accounts to suspects through NCMEC tip analysis.


Annotation indicating the report is associated with solicitation of CSAM. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations/csamSolicitation element.


Incidents involving child sex tourism. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, incidentType 'Child Sex Tourism'.


Incidents involving child sex trafficking. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, incidentType 'Child Sex Trafficking'.


Identification and classification of illegal content in NCMEC tips.


Analytical processing and assessment of NCMEC CyberTip reports by law enforcement.


Referral of NCMEC tip to federal law enforcement agencies.


Event or information that triggers law enforcement investigation based on NCMEC tip.


Referral of NCMEC tip to local law enforcement agency.


Annotation indicating the report is associated with an interaction between minors. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations/minorToMinorInteraction element.


A report submitted to NCMEC's CyberTipline. This class represents the root structure of a NCMEC report as defined in the NCMEC Cybertip API documentation.


Types of incidents as defined by NCMEC Cybertip API (Section B.1.1). This class represents the standardized incident categories used in NCMEC reporting.


Tags to describe the NCMEC report. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations element.


Incidents involving online enticement of children for sexual acts. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, incidentType 'Online Enticement of Children for Sexual Acts'.


Tracing of phone numbers linked to accounts in NCMEC tips.


Cooperation from digital platforms in providing information for NCMEC tips.


Evidence or indicators suggesting possession of child sexual abuse material.


Annotation indicating the report is associated with sextortion. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations/sextortion element.


Annotation indicating the report is associated with spam. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations/spam element.


Referral of NCMEC tip to appropriate ICAC task force for investigation.


Enhancement of NCMEC tips with additional investigative information.


Priority assessment and ranking of NCMEC tips for investigation.


Processing workflow for NCMEC tips from receipt to investigation referral.


Validation and verification of information in NCMEC tips.


Detection of transfer or sharing of child sexual abuse material.


Confidence level in account linking (verified, probable, possible).


Confidence level in tip analysis (high, medium, low).


Links analysis to the NCMEC tip being analyzed.


Level of platform cooperation (full, partial, limited, none).


Type of data provided by platform (account_info, user_data, content, metadata).


Type of enrichment added (geographic, demographic, technical, behavioral).


Links a NCMEC report to its incident type. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, incidentType element.


Links a NCMEC report to its annotations. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, reportAnnotations element.


Links content identification to identified digital content.


The official NCMEC incident type code. Source: NCMEC Cybertip API Section B.1.1, incidentType element.


Strength of possession or transfer indicators (strong, moderate, weak).


Links platform cooperation to the digital platform involved.


Links account linking to digital account.


Status of phone number verification (verified, unverified, disconnected).


Time taken by platform to respond to information request in hours.


Priority level assigned to tip (critical, high, medium, low).


Links processing activity to the tip being processed.


Time taken to process tip in hours.


Jurisdiction to which tip is referred (federal, state, local).


Links investigation trigger to the investigation it initiated.


Links tip analysis to platform cooperation that supported it.


Links phone trace to specific phone number.


Frequency of transfer activity (single, multiple, ongoing).


Volume of material transferred in megabytes.


Criteria that triggered investigation (content_volume, suspect_profile, victim_age, repeat_offender).


Links investigation trigger to the tip that triggered it.


Urgency level for investigation (immediate, urgent, routine).


Validation status of tip (validated, partially_validated, not_validated).


Federal crime involving abusive sexual contact with minor victims. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of aggravated sexual abuse involving children in federal jurisdiction. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Role of DOJ CEOS attorney specializing in child exploitation prosecution. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


DOJ Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section serving unique and critical function in enforcement of federal laws protecting children from exploitation and prohibiting distribution of obscenity. Modeled as gUFO FunctionalComplex Organization.


Federal crime of distributing child pornography across state or international boundaries. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of possessing child pornography that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of producing child pornography, carrying severe mandatory minimum sentences. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of knowingly receiving child pornography through interstate or foreign commerce. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal laws related to child support enforcement that intersect with child exploitation cases.


Federal crime of willfully failing to pay child support across state lines. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Connection between child support violations and child exploitation crimes. Modeled as gUFO Situation.


Federal crime involving commercial sexual exploitation of children through force, fraud, or coercion. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of producing child pornography outside U.S. by U.S. citizens or residents. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Extraterritorial Sexual Exploitation Law

Federal laws criminalizing sexual exploitation of children committed by U.S. citizens or residents abroad.


U.S. federal law related to child exploitation as enforced by CEOS. Modeled as gUFO Object providing legal framework.


Federal statutes criminalizing child pornography production, distribution, receipt, and possession.


Federal statutes criminalizing child sex trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, and related crimes.


Federal statutes criminalizing child sexual abuse in federal jurisdiction or involving interstate elements.


Role of individual charged in federal child exploitation case. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Federal investigation of child exploitation crimes. Modeled as gUFO Event with temporal boundaries and evidence gathering.


Role of federal investigator (FBI, ICE, etc.) investigating child exploitation. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


U.S. federal law related to obscenity distribution and enforcement as managed by CEOS. Modeled as gUFO Object providing legal framework.


Federal legal prosecution process for child exploitation crimes. Modeled as gUFO Event with temporal progression through phases.


Role of federal prosecutor handling child exploitation cases. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Role of victim in federal child exploitation prosecution. Modeled as anti-rigid gUFO Role.


Pattern where child support evasion is used as mechanism of control in exploitation cases.


Federal crime involving sexual exploitation of children in foreign commerce. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of distributing obscene materials through interstate or foreign commerce. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of importing obscene materials into the United States. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of transporting obscene materials across state or international boundaries. Modeled as gUFO Event.


Federal crime of distributing obscene materials through internet and digital platforms. Modeled as gUFO Event.