---
title: "Do DoD IG audits DODIG-2021-077 and DODIG-2022-127 mention AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP by name, or contain their own OT subject-area breakdown?"
type: "question"
status: "answered"
date_raised: "2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z"
answered_log: "2026-10-19 — both reports were fetched and read in full this session (Wayback Machine capture for DODIG-2021-077; oversight.gov PDF mirror for DODIG-2022-127 after a corrupted Wayback capture). Settled by [[claim-dodig-2021-077-dodig-2022-127-no-mention-of-ac-gravity-aatip-aawsap]] (neither name appears anywhere in either document, upgrading the prior unread absence-of-search to a confirmed absence) and [[claim-dodig-audits-organize-by-compliance-category-not-subject-area]] (neither report contains a subject-area breakdown; both organize findings by compliance category, corroborating GAO's table as the only such breakdown assembled)."
tags: ["other-transactions-authority","dod-inspector-general","antigravity","aatip","aawsap","unverified"]
---


[[claim-ac-gravity-aawsap-not-same-funding-mechanism-nor-found-in-watchdog-material]]
carries an `[unverified]` flag on its "visible outlier" framing: no GAO, CRS,
or DoD IG document found this session names AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP, but
two directly relevant DoD Inspector General audits were not independently
read — only noted as further leads in the originating capture:

- **DODIG-2021-077** (April 2021) — consortium OT compliance, examined a
  $24.6B sample, FY2018–2019.
- **DODIG-2022-127** (September 2022) — prototype OT / nontraditional-
  contractor compliance.

## What to pull

1. Both reports, likely hosted at `media.defense.gov` — which returned HTTP 403
   to `extract_pdf` and `WebFetch` alike on the originating capture's attempt
   (2026-10-18). Try a Wayback Machine capture first, per the vault's
   Wayback-first convention for other known-blocked hosts.
2. Search each for "AC Gravity," "AATIP," "AAWSAP," and "antigravity" — a
   genuine negative result here (rather than an unattempted search) is itself
   the finding that would let the null result in the linked claim-note stand
   on more than an absence-of-search.
3. Note whether either report contains its own technology-area or subject-area
   breakdown of OT obligations — a second, independent data point against
   [[claim-gao-2022-ot-consortia-breakdown-shows-conventional-categories-not-fringe-physics]].

## Why it matters

The linked claim-note's null result ("no document found this session names
AC Gravity or AATIP") is currently a search-coverage finding, not a confirmed
negative — it's unclear whether the absence is because these two cases
genuinely don't appear in DoD IG material, or because the two most likely
documents to mention them were never actually opened.


## Progress log

- 2026-10-19 — both reports were fetched and read in full this session (Wayback Machine capture for DODIG-2021-077; oversight.gov PDF mirror for DODIG-2022-127 after a corrupted Wayback capture). Settled by [[claim-dodig-2021-077-dodig-2022-127-no-mention-of-ac-gravity-aatip-aawsap]] (neither name appears anywhere in either document, upgrading the prior unread absence-of-search to a confirmed absence) and [[claim-dodig-audits-organize-by-compliance-category-not-subject-area]] (neither report contains a subject-area breakdown; both organize findings by compliance category, corroborating GAO's table as the only such breakdown assembled).