Sarai Hannah Ajai Observation of Unexplained Apartment Unit Variations Displayed in IO*** Checkout Address-Autocomplete System During Domain Purchase Setup

 ncident Report Title:

Observation of Unexplained Apartment Unit Variations Displayed in IO*** Checkout Address-Autocomplete System During Domain Purchase Setup

Professional Evidence Description:

On May 29, 2026, at approximately 5:41 PM, I was logged into my IO*** account and was in the process of completing the checkout steps for the purchase and setup of new domain names. During the checkout process, I reached the customer billing information section, where I was required to enter my legal name and billing address. While typing my residential street address into the street-address field, the IO*** checkout page displayed an address-autocomplete dropdown list showing multiple apartment-unit suggestions associated with my building address.

The autocomplete suggestions included several apartment numbers that appeared consistent with the known unit numbering for the floor, including standard unit numbers within the expected range of **1 through **8. However, I observed that the same dropdown list also displayed additional apartment-unit variations that appeared inconsistent with my understanding of the legally recognized units on the floor. Specifically, the address suggestions displayed entries including “Apt **2F,” “Apt **2S,” and “Apt **6N,” in addition to standard apartment numbers such as Apt **1, Apt **2, Apt **3, Apt **4, Apt **5, Apt **6, Apt **7, and Apt **8.

Based on my understanding, the second floor contains eight recognized apartment units: **1, **2, **3, **4, **5, **6, **7, and **8. The appearance of additional unit variations, including **2F, **2S, and **6N, was unexpected and caused concern because these entries appeared to represent extra address variations tied to the same building address. I do not know whether these variations originated from IO***, a third-party address-validation provider, a commercial address database, postal-formatting records, prior billing or delivery records, property-management data, or another data source connected to the checkout system.

I preserved screenshots of the IO*** checkout page showing the billing information section and the address-autocomplete dropdown entries. The screenshots show the IO*** website address bar, the checkout progress path, the billing information form, my typed street-address entry, and the dropdown list containing both standard apartment-unit suggestions and the unexplained unit variations. The screenshots were captured as contemporaneous evidence of what appeared on the screen during the checkout process.

At this time, I am not asserting that the displayed unit variations conclusively prove unauthorized occupancy, identity theft, mail diversion, database manipulation, or any specific misconduct. The screenshots do, however, document that unexplained apartment-unit variations were displayed in a commercial checkout address-autocomplete system while I was entering my legal billing address. Because the screen did not identify the source of the address data, further verification is needed from IO***, the property manager, and any official address-standardization source that may be relevant.

This incident is being documented for recordkeeping purposes because the unexpected address variations may be relevant to ongoing concerns involving address integrity, billing records, mail delivery accuracy, identity protection, and the possible use of non-standard address variations connected to my residential building. I intend to preserve the screenshots, maintain the original image files with their date and time information, and seek written clarification regarding whether unit variations such as Apt **2F, Apt **2S, and Apt **6N are recognized, erroneous, historical, or otherwise explainable entries within the address data used by IO*** or its address-validation provider.

The purpose of this evidence description is to accurately record the observation, preserve the timing and context of the screenshots, and avoid unsupported conclusions until the address data source and unit records can be independently verified.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sarai Hannah Ajai