update: Wave 3 deletion — 9th article deleted citing Cybersecurity Law

- article_censorship.html: 8→9 articles, 2→3 waves
- Added Wave 3 timeline entry: Vol.04 PatchProxy deleted 2026-03-25
- Key contradiction: CAC Data Bureau confirmed Alipay investigation on SAME DAY
- Added deletion notice screenshot (evidence/wechat_wave3_deletion.png)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

article_censorship.html

@@ -4,12 +4,12 @@
 <meta charset="utf-8">
 <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
 <title>当"网络安全法"成为审查武器 | When "Cybersecurity Law" Becomes a Censorship Weapon — Innora AI Security Research</title>
-<meta name="description" content="支付宝安全研究审查全记录：8篇微信文章被分两波删除，36份MITRE报告，IACR论文已发表。完整时间线与证据。Censorship documented: 8 articles deleted.">
+<meta name="description" content="支付宝安全研究审查全记录：9篇微信文章被分三波删除，36份MITRE报告，IACR论文已发表。完整时间线与证据。Censorship documented: 8 articles deleted.">
 <meta name="author" content="Jiqiang Feng — Innora AI Security Research">
 
 <!-- Open Graph -->
 <meta property="og:title" content="When 'Cybersecurity Law' Becomes a Censorship Weapon: A Security Researcher's Global Fight">
-<meta property="og:description" content="8 WeChat articles force-deleted in 2 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Full evidence and timeline.">
+<meta property="og:description" content="9 WeChat articles force-deleted in 3 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Full evidence and timeline.">
 <meta property="og:type" content="article">
 <meta property="og:url" content="https://innora.ai/zfb/article_censorship.html">
 <meta property="og:image" content="https://innora.ai/zfb/og-image.png">
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
 <!-- Twitter Card -->
 <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
 <meta name="twitter:title" content="When 'Cybersecurity Law' Becomes a Censorship Weapon">
-<meta name="twitter:description" content="8 WeChat articles deleted in 2 waves. 36 MITRE reports filed. IACR paper published. First documented case of vendor switching legal grounds after platform rejection. Full evidence.">
+<meta name="twitter:description" content="9 WeChat articles deleted in 3 waves. 36 MITRE reports filed. IACR paper published. First documented case of vendor switching legal grounds after platform rejection. Full evidence.">
 <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://innora.ai/zfb/og-image.png">
 
 <meta name="keywords" content="Alipay, security research, censorship, WeChat, cybersecurity law, CVE, MITRE, whistleblower, Ant Group, CSSF, HKMA, vulnerability disclosure">
@@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ footer a { color: var(--teal); }
   "@context": "https://schema.org",
   "@type": "Article",
   "headline": "When 'Cybersecurity Law' Becomes a Censorship Weapon: A Security Researcher's Global Fight Against Corporate Suppression",
-  "description": "8 WeChat articles force-deleted in 2 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Full timeline and evidence.",
+  "description": "9 WeChat articles force-deleted in 3 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Full timeline and evidence.",
   "datePublished": "2026-03-15",
   "author": {"@type": "Person", "name": "Jiqiang Feng (风宁)", "email": "feng@innora.ai"},
   "publisher": {"@type": "Organization", "name": "Innora AI Security Research", "url": "https://innora.ai"},
@@ -710,8 +710,8 @@ footer a { color: var(--teal); }
   </h1>
 
   <p class="subtitle">
-    <span class="zh">8篇微信安全研究文章被分两波强制删除。36份报告已提交MITRE。IACR学术论文已收录。22个国家的监管机构正在调查。真相不需要删除通知。</span>
+    <span class="zh">9篇微信安全研究文章被分三波删除。36份报告已提交MITRE。IACR学术论文已收录。22个国家的监管机构正在调查。真相不需要删除通知。</span>
-    <span class="en">8 WeChat security research articles forcibly deleted in 2 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Truth needs no takedown notice.</span>
+    <span class="en">9 WeChat security research articles deleted in 3 waves. 36 reports filed with MITRE. IACR paper published. 22 countries investigating. Truth needs no takedown notice.</span>
   </p>
 
   <div class="hero-meta">
@@ -1106,10 +1106,19 @@ footer a { color: var(--teal); }
       <span class="en"><strong>The escalation pattern is unmistakable:</strong></span>
     </p>
     <p>
-      <span class="zh">口头否认漏洞 → 律师函投诉"名誉侵权"（被驳回）→ 改用"网络安全法"（第一波：删4篇）→ 研究员继续发表 → 再次删除（第二波：再删4篇）→ 服务器端拦截PoC</span>
+      <span class="zh">口头否认漏洞 → 律师函投诉"名誉侵权"（被驳回）→ 改用"网络安全法"（第一波：删4篇）→ 研究员继续发表 → 再次删除（第二波：再删4篇）→ 网信办核查同日再删1篇（第三波）→ 服务器端拦截PoC</span>
-      <span class="en">Verbal denial → Lawyer letter citing "reputation infringement" (rejected) → Switch to "Cybersecurity Law" (Wave 1: 4 articles deleted) → Researcher continues publishing → Second deletion (Wave 2: 4 more deleted) → Server-side PoC interception</span>
+      <span class="en">Verbal denial → Lawyer letter citing "reputation infringement" (rejected) → Switch to "Cybersecurity Law" (Wave 1: 4 articles deleted) → Researcher continues publishing → Second deletion (Wave 2: 4 more deleted) → CAC investigation same day, 1 more deleted (Wave 3) → Server-side PoC interception</span>
     </p>
   </div>
+    <!-- Wave 3: Single Article Deletion (March 25) -->
+    <div class="timeline-item critical">
+      <div class="timeline-date">2026-03-25</div>
+      <p>
+        <span class="zh"><strong>第三波：网信办核查同日删除</strong> — Vol.04《支付宝146,173个方法可被远程替换——PatchProxy热修复的代码级铁证》被删除。删除理由明确引用"违反《中华人民共和国网络安全法》"。<strong>同一天(3月25日)，中国网信办数据局正式通知研究员，正在组织对支付宝App进行核查。</strong>揭露支付宝安全问题的文章被以"网络安全法"名义删除，与网络安全最高执法机构的调查行动形成直接矛盾。</span>
+        <span class="en"><strong>Wave 3: Deletion on Same Day as CAC Investigation</strong> — Vol.04 "Alipay's 146,173 Remotely Replaceable Methods — PatchProxy Hot-Patching" was deleted. The deletion notice explicitly cited "violation of the Cybersecurity Law of the PRC." <strong>On the same day (March 25), China's CAC Data Bureau formally notified the researcher that it was conducting an investigation into Alipay's data practices.</strong> An article exposing Alipay's security issues was deleted under "Cybersecurity Law" while the nation's top cybersecurity enforcement agency was simultaneously investigating the same company.</span>
+      </p>
+    </div>
+
 </section>
 
 <!-- ═══════════════════════════════════════════