<aside> <img src="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" alt="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" width="40px" /> We see significant potential for public benefit in releasing these datasets promptly. Still, we want to inform readers of the potential limitations. While we have taken great care to address potential issues in the data, the user is responsible for verifying the data.

We identified posts associated with the Doppelgänger Operation using an evidence-based methodology. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize potential weaknesses in our approach:

1. Possibility of Operational Clones: Other entities could create operations that mimic the characteristics of the Doppelgänger Operation, intentionally or otherwise. Such clones might inadvertently be included in our dataset, as our identification criteria may not distinguish between original and duplicative activities.
2. Limitations of Data Collection Tools: Our data collection tools face difficulties with posts flagged by Twitter as potentially offensive. The tools may mistakenly capture information from the tweet response rather than the intended Doppelgänger post itself in these cases. Although we have diligently removed such entries from our dataset, some inaccuracies may persist.
3. Limited API Access: These data were not collected using the Twitter API, which introduces the potential for more errors and inaccurate data collection. Despite this, we do feel confident that the vast majority of the accounts identified in reports are part of the Doppelgänger Operation, identified in 2022, and that the articles listed as being shared by the operation were shared by at least one account–though usually multiples–where we have a high degree of confidence that it meets our criteria for identifying accounts.

</aside>