Tamil first, English alongside, Sinhala summary, the rest cited only.
Language choice is a methodological claim. Tamil-first is not a stylistic decision; it is what changes when a Tamil-Eelam archive is built by Tamil hands. English is the clarity layer because most Tier-A anchors are English-language. A published Sinhala summary at /si exists so the refusal posture is legible without polemic to Sinhala-language readers. Everything else is honestly out of scope.
Coverage map
Tamil-first typography, key terms in Tamil with English gloss, Noto Sans Tamil at all sizes. Translation surface via <Bi /> component.
Every page renders in English alongside Tamil. Citation glosses are English-first because Tier-A anchors are predominantly English-language UN/inquiry documents.
The full refusal posture (what TLTE will not do — no naming, no counts, no intake) is summarised on /si as a non-defensive statement to Sinhala-language readers. Full-site translation is OUT OF SCOPE this era.
Tier-A French anchors (Médecins Sans Frontières, AFP) are cited in their source language. Page-level French translation is not in scope.
For OHCHR-language coverage on Geneva submissions. Page-level Arabic translation is not in scope.
UN-working-language coverage beyond English/French/Arabic is structurally out of scope for the era. Named in the limit.
Why no Sinhala full translation
A full Sinhala translation of the corpus could be misread — by hostile readers — as TLTE claiming authority over a Sinhala-language civic public it does not represent. The refusal posture at /si is a statement to that public, not a claim over it. If a recognised Sinhala civil-society partner (e.g. CPA, Verité Research, Hashtag Generation) requests fuller translation in writing, gate 6 (accredited partnership) becomes the decision surface — not a unilateral expansion.