Baseline visit v1 schema · facts legacy-derived · descriptive report

www.citi.com

https://www.citi.com/

Sep 7, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC

cut short: the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete; derived from status and warnings

View site history Scan this exact route again

Evidence quality

This report is built on an incomplete visit

Incomplete evidence: evidence was cut short before completion (the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete). Counts for the affected evidence are lower bounds; families that completed carry only their ordinary limits. The evidence receipt states the exact per-visit quality.

What this actually means

citi.com recorded 76 fewer third-party requests in the visit configured for Brave-list blocking.

The visit with no blocking made 165 requests; the visit configured to apply Brave's ad-block engine and default Shields filter lists (a simulation in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave-browser visit) recorded 76 fewer third-party requests. The blocker directly stopped 18 requests; the remaining difference may include follow-on requests that never started once their sources were blocked, plus run-to-run variance.

5tracking-service entities

84cross-site requests

14third-party cookie records

Plain-Language Findings

What this visit means

Unfamiliar terms are defined in the glossary

playwright-chromium

Worth checking

Bottom line: this visit has review-worthy signals

The scan observed signals a non-expert should not have to decode from raw request tables. Some detector evidence was incomplete; each affected detector card states its own retained or unavailable scope, while completed request, cookie, and storage measurements keep their recorded exactness.

The cards below translate the evidence into plain language. Where a measured distribution exists, severity ranks this visit against percentiles from the report's exact schema, methodology, tracker-catalog, ServiceRole-taxonomy, metric-contract, producer, and Global Privacy Control cohort, with each percentile card naming its metric-specific measured-site denominator (among 98 sites with a successful load across all cohorts; other methodologies, request-capped visits, and post-choice consent visits are excluded from this denominator, while failed or block-page attempts are outside that coverage), a curated set of popular, mostly commercial sites, not a random sample of the web, and otherwise uses fixed reference thresholds. The request log, domain table, and methodology remain below for verification.

165 requests observed in one controlled visit.

Worth checking

76 requests matched Brave Shields filter lists

76 requests matched the default filter lists of Brave Shields, the ad and tracker blocker built into the Brave browser, while loading normally.

Computed with Brave's own ad-block engine and default filter lists in classification mode: matched requests were not blocked by the scanner and remain in this report's observed request counts. Matching shows what Shields would target on this visit's traffic; an actual Shields visit blocks these and also prevents their follow-on requests, so this number is neither a measured block count nor the total effect.

The hand-curated service catalog separately matched 24 request rows in this visit.Show matched requests

Nothing observed

Lower values observed across comparable metrics in the Brave-list blocking attempt

With the scanner configured to apply Brave's ad-block engine and default Shields filter lists (a simulation in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave-browser visit; application was not verified), this paired visit showed 76 fewer third-party requests, 14 fewer third-party cookies and 23 fewer tracking-related service requests.

Services only seen in the unblocked visit: Google, LiveRamp and Amazon Ads, plus 1 other. The blocking visit's engine directly blocked 18 requests; the remaining difference may include follow-on requests that never started once their sources were blocked. A single paired comparison can also reflect run-to-run variance (ad rotation, caching, experiments), so treat this as an observed difference, not a measured blocking rate.

Signed per-metric differences between the two visits; nothing is summed across metrics.Show matched requests

Worth checking

5 first-party DNS aliases matched tracking checks

Recorded DNS aliases resolve to catalogued tracking-related services: Adobe. 4 resolved targets matched Brave filter lists; those matches do not identify the operators.

The scanner followed DNS CNAME chains from first-party subdomains and checked resolved targets against the service catalog and Brave filter lists. These matches do not establish a request's purpose, profiling, or an intent to conceal tracking. A filter-list match alone is not a verified service identity or proof of tracking.

{label}.{label}.citi.com → {label}.{label}.{label}.we-stats.com (Brave filter-list match; operator unverified), {label}.{label}.citi.com → {label}.{label}.{label}.we-stats.com (Brave filter-list match; operator unverified), {label}.citi.com → {label}.{label}.{label}.{label}.omtrdc.net (Adobe; catalog match) and {label}.{label}.citi.com → {label}.{label}.online-metrix.net (Brave filter-list match; operator unverified), plus 1 otherOpen domain evidence

Context

Tracking companies the privacy policy does not appear to name

LiveRamp and Comscore were sent requests during this visit, but the policy text matched none of the names this scan knows those companies by.

Policies often disclose vendor categories rather than company names, so an unnamed vendor is a transparency gap worth reviewing, not automatically a violation. Named in the policy: Google and Adobe.

Policy at https://www.citi.com/policies/{seg}; 0 checkable statements matched; 2 of 4 observed tracking companies named in the policy; policy mentions of Amazon Ads are unknown because the historical alias matcher was incomplete.

Worth checking

Catalogued service domains recorded responses during this visit

Google, Adobe and LiveRamp, plus 2 others appeared in the request log.

A catalog match identifies a maintainer-reviewed service/domain mapping; it does not establish why an individual request occurred, what it carried, or whether profiling happened. Functional catalog labels include analytics / tag management, advertising and analytics / advertising. This scan could not identify 18 of the 29 third-party hosts recorded here, so it cannot say who operates them. That is a limit of identity coverage, not evidence about the site.

84 cross-site requests across 29 third-party hosts.Show third-party requests

Context

Requests were dispatched to catalogued major-platform domains

This visit dispatched requests to catalogued domains for Google.

The domain matches identify services, not the requests' purpose, payload, or whether any profile linking occurred.

10 requests to these platforms.Show catalog-matched requests

Nothing observed

Google Analytics present, no remarketing signal

Google Analytics was observed, but no DoubleClick remarketing sync appeared in this visit.

Standard analytics collection was observed, without the stats.g.doubleclick.net advertising sync.

Google Analytics host observed; no stats.g.doubleclick.net request.Show catalog-matched requests

Worth checking

Third-party cookies were present

14 third-party cookies showed up during the visit.

The scanner observed cookie metadata whose domain crossed the scanned site's registrable-domain boundary. This report does not retain cookie values or partition keys, so it does not establish whether a cookie was a persistent identifier or could recognize a visitor across sites.

55 cookies total in this report.At or above the 75th-percentile mark for third-party cookies across the 88 sites measured for this metric.

Context

Incomplete evidence: No fingerprint-like API calls observed in retained evidence before collection stopped

The scan did not observe the instrumented high-entropy browser APIs.

This is an observation layer, not proof that fingerprinting is impossible. Evidence collection was cut short, so this covers only what was recorded before the cutoff.

Retained incomplete evidence includes 0 API event records; no exact API-family total is available.

Raw evidence

Open the interactive evidence explorer

The findings above are built from the stored report. Load the request rows, domains, cookies, storage keys, browser signals, visit phases, charts and CSV export when you want to check them; the versioned report JSON is always available below without this interface.

This versioned report is currently retained in the public corpus. Follow the currently retained site history, repeat the same public route when it is available, or request a transparent evidence correction.

Integrity and provenance

Evidence receipt

Open report JSON Open provenance sidecar Printable version Download PDF + evidence Open PDF

Report ID: 20260907-482719d3b789c0c752000a3f6c22257e
Site: www.citi.com
Latest visit: Sep 7, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC
Schema: v1 schema · facts legacy-derived · descriptive report

Verify recorded provenance

Baseline visit

Started: Sep 7, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC
Run quality: cut short: the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner: playwright-chromium
Browser: 151.0.7922.34
Redaction: not recorded by this schema
Provenance: Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.

Variant visit

Started: Sep 7, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC
Run quality: cut short: the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner: playwright-chromium
Browser: 151.0.7922.34
Redaction: not recorded by this schema
Provenance: Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.

Recorded provenance is self-reported measurement metadata, not a cryptographic attestation. The public versioned report JSON contains the retained public evidence; see the methodology for interpretation and retention limits.

This report covers what the scanner measures, not everything a site can do. 16 browser surfaces are not instrumented at all (Every page except the one that was scanned; Anything that only loads after scrolling or interaction; Why a request happened, as a causal chain; and 13 others), 3 capabilities are declined by policy, and 3 are outside what any single visit can see. Their absence from this report is not evidence that they did not occur. Read the published coverage boundary.

Detector accuracy is unmeasured. No calibration study currently publishes a precision or recall for the detectors on this page, so a detector match here is a recorded observation, not a calibrated classification. A study has been recorded for pixel-events and does not support a published rate under the current build. How detector accuracy is measured.

Approved use boundary: This report is investigative evidence that requires independent corroboration. It is not a standalone legal determination and not the sole exhibit in a legal proceeding. Recorded in this project's release manifest on 2026-08-02.