Skip to content
Turing

Analysis of the article

Concluye IEM consultas a personas de la diversidad sexual y de género en Michoacán

Noventa Grados · published on November 9, 2026

How is it written?

Very good writing

The article uses respectful language.

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Published
November 9, 2026
Analyzed
November 10, 2026
State
Online
Leer en noventagrados.com.mx PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

The text

Where we found it

These are the paragraphs where we find something, without reproducing the entire note. The other underlines are drafting details; the number leads to their explanation in the analysis. Tap or hover over a mark to see why we pointed at it.

Noventa Grados noventagrados.com.mx

By Redacción / Noventa Grados ·

abc What it does well

Concluye IEM consultas a personas de la sexual diversity y de género en Michoacán

Morelia, Michoacán, a 5 de noviembre de 2026. Con la participación de 133 personas, el Instituto Electoral de Michoacán (IEM) concluyó las consultas previas, libres, informadas y de buena fe dirigidas a personas de la sexual diversity y de género, realizadas en diferentes municipios del estado y mediante una modalidad virtual, como parte del Proceso Electoral Ordinario Local 2026-2027.

Estos ejercicios permitieron escuchar opiniones y propuestas sobre los mecanismos para acreditar la autoadscripción, pertenencia o vinculación con este grupo de atención prioritaria al momento de postularse a candidaturas mediante affirmative actions, con el propósito de fortalecer su representación política.

Las propuestas recabadas serán consideradas en el análisis de los mecanismos de acreditación de candidaturas mediante affirmative actions, para contribuir a una representación política más incluyente en Michoacán.

The rating

How Turing arrived at 100

What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the article listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.

Very good

  • Respectful

The article uses respectful language.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2026 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism No flags
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 3 strengths
Inclusive language Not applicable
How we arrived at 100 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Gender and rights perspective+6
  3. Rating (between 0 and 100, with rounding and caps by category)100

Turing related it to what the site already knows

  • Noventa Grados · Observatorio de Medios · 7 notas · promedio 84 de 100

The same text appeared in 2 outlets. The first to publish it was Quadratín Michoacán (9 de noviembre de 2026). En las cifras generales del Observatorio cuenta una sola vez; en la página de cada medio sí cuenta, porque cada medio responde por lo que publica.

What it does well

  • Talks about sexual diversity
  • Talks about affirmative action
  • Respects self-identification

What it claims

What the article says, fact-checked

In analyzing the memo, Turing reviews the figures, laws, and cases he claims and what the organizations, legislators, and authorities he cites say, and compares them to Memorial, Legislative Observatory, and published verifications.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

Who speaks

Who appears in the article

The public officials, bills and other voices we found, and what Turing did with what they say.

Legislative observatory

The article is about the work of a congress, but we did not find in it any person from the directory or a bill from the Observatory. If you know which bill it is about, choose it below.

Topic: Affirmative action and political representation

What each person said is published on their record only if it passes a verification: the quote is in the article, it is that person, and a second AI review agrees. Whatever does not pass is decided by a third AI review, without waiting for the team, which can correct any position. Report an error

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-EVJE-R9A3

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 10, 2026, 03:20:28 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-EVJE-R9A3 Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 10, 2026, 03:20:28 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive Saved on November 10, 2026 on servers that are not ours. See the copy
  5. 5. Monitoring We check it from time to time to know if it gets deleted.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Backed up on archive.org

Internet Archive, an independent digital library, saved its own copy on its servers on November 10, 2026, 09:35 (UTC). We check its index to confirm it exists before showing it here.

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy 2234c0de9f2e9defed8c22893de150bebad88feed4ea508f2086c3d39355d0b4

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

Record

About the note

Data

Byline
Redacción / Noventa Grados
Published
November 9, 2026
Last analyzed
November 10, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online

Saved versions

  • 100Version 1 · November 10, 2026 · 184 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Are you from the outlet?

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.