REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
One-sentence brief
A single “337 facilities” number hides multiple states: planned design, certification, operation, availability, and capability are related but not interchangeable.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
NUCLEAR TESTING HISTORY AND EVIDENCE
IMS Design, Operating Status, and Detection Limits
A date-bound guide to separating the CTBTO monitoring system’s completed design, certified operating facilities, real-time availability, technology mix, and detection limits.
LEVEL 1
ORIENTATION
Why this matters
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE
Three key points
- The completed IMS design is 321 monitoring stations plus 16 laboratories, for 337 facilities.
- CTBTO reported 307 certified facilities operating on 6 February 2026; that operating count is date-bound.
- A network capability statement must retain yield, technology, treaty, outage, and attribution limits.
LEVEL 2
WORKING BRIEF
Evidence, context, and limits
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Separate design from operation
The official architecture describes 50 primary and 120 auxiliary seismic stations, 11 hydroacoustic stations, 60 infrasound stations, 80 radionuclide stations, and 16 radionuclide laboratories. That is the completed design, not a claim that every facility is certified, operating, or available at every moment.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Date-stamp operating status
CTBTO reported 307 certified facilities operating out of 337 on 6 February 2026. A later page should re-check the official status rather than carrying the number forward as permanent.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Keep capability limits visible
Detection capability depends on yield, environment, network geometry, station availability, analysis, and treaty tools. Detection is not the same as attribution, legal finding, or proof that every possible event would be observed.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Propagate a currentness correction
The claim register now preserves the prior currentness-pending wording, the official sources reviewed, the bounded new wording, correction triggers, and the continuing specialist-review gap.
LEVEL 3
COMPLETE DOSSIER
Limitations, game links, and review context
DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS
Known limitations and gaps
- The official sources support only the bounded propositions and dates stated on this page.
- An editorial primary-source refresh is not specialist scientific, legal, historical, privacy, affected-community, accessibility, or operational review.
- Negative evidence is conditioned on monitoring scope, capability, reporting, and review date; it is not proof of impossibility.
- Limited implementation does not establish universal deployment, effectiveness, transferability, governance quality, or authority.
- No page or workbench performs diagnosis, tracking, alerting, forecasting, targeting, publication, production, activation, or tuning.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Primary sources and review connections
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE
Glossary cross-reference
Terms are defined for this site’s evidence method, not as universal legal or clinical definitions.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE
Decision matrix
| Evidence condition | Safe public treatment | Do not imply |
|---|---|---|
| Current official source | State the institution, source date, bounded proposition, and review date. | Permanent truth or complete independent verification. |
| Negative official statement | State what was not declared or detected, by what system, and through which date. | Logical impossibility or unlimited detection capability. |
| Limited implementation | Name the program, geography, sites or select scope, and current status. | Universal deployment, endorsement, or validated transfer. |
| Early-warning evidence | Describe a complementary, variable signal with method and comparator. | One guaranteed lead-time interval or automatic action. |
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE
Publication audit checklist
Date and institution
Are source date, review date, and issuing institution visible?
Pass condition: Readers can tell when and by whom the status was stated.
Scope
Does wording stay inside the exact facility, program, population, pathogen, or monitoring scope?
Pass condition: No national or global generalization exceeds the source.
State transition
Are prior wording and the reason for the update preserved?
Pass condition: The correction log and claim record show a versioned transition.
Authority
Does the page deny specialist, diagnostic, monitoring, publication, operational, production, activation, and tuning authority?
Pass condition: Editorial source review cannot be mistaken for consequential approval.
LEVEL 4
RESEARCH EDITION
Sources, methods, and stable links
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE
Linked reports
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED
Method and corrections
This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.
NEXT
CONTINUE
Related learning
Nuclear Testing History and EvidenceDisputed Detonations, Monitoring, and Attribution Under UncertaintyHow to distinguish detected signals, official assessments, disputed incidents, state attribution, design claims, and adjudicated findings.Nuclear Testing History and EvidenceEvent-Level Records, Device-Level Counts, and Grouped DetonationsHow to compare national test totals without confusing a catalog row, a test event, a salvo, an operation, a device, or a wartime detonation.Nuclear Testing History and EvidenceFallout, Downwinders, Displacement, and RemedyA human-centered framework for connecting test chronology with exposure evidence, secrecy, displacement, health care, acknowledgement, compensation, restoration, and appeal.Nuclear Testing History and EvidenceLatest Confirmed Test, Currentness, and Negative EvidenceHow to publish a current “latest confirmed test” statement without turning a monitoring record into proof that an undetectable event was impossible. Learning pathCurrent Primary-Source Review and Implementation BoundariesMove from a dated source claim through current official evidence, scope, negative evidence, implementation status, correction propagation, and accountable specialist review.