What is real here, and what is not

Published figures and documented procedure, sourced. The rejection statistics come from EPFO's annual report for 2024–25 as reported by Business Today in July 2026: about 796 lakh claims filed, about 174 lakh rejected, roughly 22 per cent. The rejection remarks are representative of strings widely reported by members. The correction routes — Joint Declaration through the employer, self-service exit marking, Form 13 transfer — are EPFO's own documented procedures.

Quoted from the text of the Right to Information Act 2005. Section 6(1) is the application. Section 7(1) sets the thirty-day reply period and section 7(2) makes silence a deemed refusal. Section 19(1) is the first appeal and 19(3) the second. Section 20(1) is the penalty of ₹250 a day up to ₹25,000, payable by the Public Information Officer personally. Everything the interface calls a hard clock traces to one of these.

The note sheets are the one place we model rather than report. They are built from EPFO's documented four-desk claim workflow and from the remark on each case, to show what a file of that kind contains and where the twenty-day count restarts. They are not copies of anyone's actual file, and we do not claim to know what any real officer wrote. Obtaining the genuine article is exactly what the RTI on the Documents tab is for — that is the product's point rather than a limitation of it.

Every member is invented. The numbers are deliberately malformed so they cannot collide with anything real: UANs begin 99, Aadhaar numbers would begin 0000 — a range UIDAI does not issue — and no real bank account, PAN or Aadhaar number appears anywhere in this build. Sign-in is decorative; there is no account, no OTP, no session and no database. Nothing you type is transmitted or stored.

The illustrations were generated with an image model, then constrained rather than accepted: locked to this design system’s palette, and prompted to contain no lettering, so that nothing on screen becomes untranslatable, unreadable to a screen reader, or blurry when the page is enlarged. None of them carries the EPFO logo, the State Emblem, the Ashoka Chakra or the flag, because a prototype that borrowed an authority mark would be claiming an approval it does not have. Each file still holds the generator’s invisible provenance watermark, which survives resizing, so they remain identifiable as generated.

No language model runs when you use this. The assistant and the search retrieve passages that were written in advance and name their source; they cannot compose a new answer, which is why they will say they hold nothing rather than produce something plausible about a statutory deadline. The whole site is static files, so there is no server to be slow and nothing to cold-start on a poor connection.

That is a line rather than an abstention, and it is worth saying where it falls. A model wrote most of the code here, generated the illustrations, and assembled the phrase book that lets this site understand “paisa nahi aaya” — the sentence a great many members would actually type, which until recently returned nothing at all. Every one of those happened before the build, and every one produced something a person can read: a file, an image, a table of words. The phrase book is checked by its own tests, and if an entry is wrong the worst it can do is fail to find a page.

What is not delegated is the answer. Understanding the question is a retrieval problem and a model is very good at it; deciding what a statutory period is, or what an officer must do, is not, and on a page about somebody’s blocked money a fluent invention is worse than an empty result. So the model is used up to the point where this site starts making claims, and not past it.