Schedule of Exhibits and Evidence Bundle: Activity-Based Costing of the "Non-Creation of Records"

This repository contains the Schedule of Exhibits (`evidence_description-whitepaper-intake-filtering-abc-3e-tax-leakage.pdf`) and the redacted Evidence Bundle (`Evidence_Bundle_ABC_3E_Tax_Leakage_1.pdf`) accompanying the paper: Takashi Miyazawa (2026), "Activity-Based Costing of the 'Non-Creation of Records': Cross-Subsidization, 3E Audit Failure, and Withholding Tax Leakage Under Endogenous Intake Filtering" (Trilogy Paper III). Contents of the Deposit:1. Exhibit 17 (2026-05-11): Consumer Affairs Agency, Whistleblowing Desk — reply stating that, under Article 14 of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Agency instructs (guides) the whistleblower as to the relevant agencies with investigative authority, and that this instruction does not bind the authority of the investigative agency instructed.2. Exhibit 50 (2026-08-12): Chief of the Chiba-Higashi Police Station — reply to a written criminal complaint at the initial intake stage, requesting supplementary particulars and stating that a definitive answer as to acceptance or non-acceptance is difficult at that point. Methodological Note and Disclaimer:The two official documents reproduced in this Evidence Bundle (Ex. 17 and Ex. 50) are redacted to protect personal and case-specific particulars (the addressee's name and, in Ex. 50, the passages stating the substance of the complaint are redacted). The documents are in Japanese; descriptions in the accompanying paper and in the Schedule of Exhibits are the author's English renderings, not official translations. Ex. 50 documents, in general terms, an initial intake stage at which supplementary particulars are requested and acceptance remains undecided, the stage for which Article 65 of the Criminal Investigation Norms provides for requesting supplementary documents or statements. Ex. 50 contains no information on budgets, allowances, expenses, payroll, or taxation. The audit and tax-examination protocols derived from the mathematical model in the accompanying paper are stated in general terms and are not applied to, and draw no inference about, that matter, the police station concerned, or the Chiba Prefectural Police; nor is Ex. 50 relied on as identifying the provision on which the reply was based, or as showing that the complaint was refused, that any provision was applied improperly, or that the control alpha* = 0 was applied in that matter. The accompanying paper and this dataset do not determine or assert malice, intentional tax evasion, the misuse of any budget, the improper payment or classification of any allowance or expense, the non-withholding of any tax, or any other unlawful or improper conduct on the part of any particular administrative body, police organization, police station, officeholder, or individual, and they do not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice.