 <h1>Congratulations! 🎉 </h1>
    <p style="color:#637381;">All done! You’ve completed another milestone.</p>

To continue, enter your details to log in.

We’ve sent a 6‑digit code to #MAIL_ADDRESS#\nPlease check your inbox or spam folder and enter the code below to continue.

Verification code sent

Thank you for the payment. You can now access {collectionName} by simply clicking the button below.

Yes, you’ve successfully ordered! 🎉

Unlock This Exclusive Course

It seems that your email address is not currently on the authorized access list. Please ensure you are using the email address that was invited, or contact the content owner for assistance.

Verification Required for Access

The study

Inside the MacEbong study

The geographic anomaly pattern

The perfect-score signal

The detection logic, in code

The wider forensic toolkit: peer-reviewed methods

Where manipulation concentrates

How a machine-learning study of 123,918 polling units detected statistical anomalies in published results — and what its geographic findings do and don't prove.

When you only have published results, statistics is your instrument. This module walks through Joachim Oye MacEbong's study of the 2023 presidential results — its method, its geographic findings, and the discipline it takes to read them without partisanship.

Detecting Manipulation: The MacEbong Method

<div class="simple-box-wrapper"> <div class="simple-box"> <div class="column"> <h3>Description</h3> <div class="ck-horizontal-line"><hr></div> <p>I'm a paragraph. Click to start writing that will inform, inspire, or encourage your community. We know you have so many things to share with the world. Happy editing!</p> </div> </div> </div>