Sources: ASCN Concept Note (2018), Consolidated SCAPs (as of 8 July 2018), ASCN 2019 Annual Meeting Report. Note that three files in the source library — 09, 13 and 14 — are the same 2019 report in different revisions, not three independent sources. One further document in the library, a Thai Cabinet submission, is an image-only scan with no extractable text and could not be cited.

The 2022 and 2023 reports state no reporting period at all; the 2024 and 2025 reports state one. Cut-offs drift from mid-August to late September, so the four cycles are not a perfectly uniform annual series. The 2025 figure of 134 is verifiable twice within a single document: stated in prose, and reconcilable from 116 appendix-A items plus 18 appendix-B items.

Two things are worth being precise about. First, none of the four M&E cycles attaches a single currency amount to anything: the reports name ADB, JICA, USTDA, AASCTF, SmartJAMP, Aus4ASEAN, KOICA and BMBF as funders, and never state what any of them paid. The envelope figures above come from partner programme documentation, not from ASCN's own monitoring. Second, no source itemises what any envelope paid for, per city, per project. Individual ASCN projects in the tracker range from USD 100K to USD 6.7B, and the gap between those two ends is where both the network's coordinating role and its accounting vacuum sit.

Only independently published material is included in the public archive. Redaction alone does not make correspondence public.

Counts describe this archive, a growing research file and not a census of all ASCN activity. They are the ratio of documented scrutiny to documented output — not a verdict on the whole network.

This is the cheapest thing to fix and the most useful. A network that tracked where 184 trained officials went would have a performance story its own reports currently cannot tell — and it is a stronger answer to critics than any toolkit ever published.