UNSCEAR revised its estimate of the 1963 world-average atmospheric-testing dose peak downward, from 0.14 mSv in its 1982 report to 0.11 mSv in the 2000 and 2008 reports

The 0.11 mSv/yr figure confirmed in claim-unscear-primary-confirms-1963-peak-dose-and-post-1963-decline is not the number UNSCEAR always reported for the 1963 peak. UNSCEAR's 2000 Report, Annex C, paragraph 42, cites an earlier UNSCEAR 1982 Report estimate of the 1963 peak dose rate as 0.14 mSv/yr — noticeably higher than the 0.11 mSv/yr figure that both the 2000 and 2008 reports converge on. The "primary figure" for this widely cited number has itself moved across UNSCEAR's own assessment cycles as dosimetric models improved, not just been restated.

[unverified-quote]: the fragments "the maximum dose rate was estimated to be" and "0.14 mSv a" each verified independently as verbatim substrings of the extracted 2000-report text, but — unlike the paragraph 61 sentence in the companion claim above, which was manually re-read in correct column order — the full sentence connecting the 1982 estimate to the 0.14 mSv figure was not confirmed as one contiguous string. The number and the attribution are each individually well-grounded in Tier-1 text; what is not yet nailed down is that they belong to the same sentence rather than adjacent column fragments.

Audit resolution (2026-08-17, cross-model, claude-fable-5): the flag above is discharged. A direct re-read of Annex C paragraph 42 in correct reading order (extract_pdf; sha256 reproduces source_sha) gives the full contiguous sentence: "The Committee provided a rough indication of the average annual doses to the world population from fallout radionuclides in the UNSCEAR 1982 Report [U6]. For 1958–1979, the maximum dose rate was estimated to be 0.14 mSv a⁻¹ in 1963, and it had decreased by almost an order of magnitude by 1979." The number and the 1982 attribution belong to the same sentence. Paragraph 61's 0.11 mSv figure was re-confirmed in the same pass. The original caveat stands above as part of this note's history, not as a live flag.

This is a minor, self-contained historiographical footnote rather than a load-bearing figure any other kept claim rests on, so it stays a flagged seedling with the caveat carried in its own frontmatter rather than routed to a new question — a future direct read of Annex C paragraph 42 in page-image form would resolve it in one pass.