WRTC 2026: What Does the Investigation into Suspicious Callsigns and Exhibit B Really Show?

The World Radiosport Team Championship (WRTC) 2026, widely regarded as the “World Championship” of competitive amateur radio, has become the center of a serious controversy concerning the validity of certain QSOs and multipliers used during the competition.

The discussion began after an analysis of the WRTC 2026 logs identified a group of callsigns displaying unusual characteristics. The investigation, described in the article The Integrity Question: Inside the WRTC 2026 Multiplier Investigation, was further developed by the chronological analysis carried out by Tim Shoppa, N3QE, known as Exhibit B.

It is important to state this clearly from the beginning:

At the time of this analysis, there is no official verdict proving that any particular WRTC team cheated.

What exists are data, anomalies, investigative findings, and questions that require official answers.

How Did the Controversy Begin?

The initial analysis identified several callsigns that appear in WRTC competitors’ logs as multipliers but raise a number of questions:

• YV1LBB
• 4F3OM
• 4S7KM
• HZ1TT
• 4K6FO
• TI1W
• HC5AI
• HL2CFY
• 9M8YY
• 9M2LAN
• ZP5KO
• ZS6WAR

According to the investigation, these callsigns share several unusual characteristics.

They appear primarily as rare stations providing multipliers, while many of them did not submit logs for the IARU HF World Championship.

The problem is not the existence of one unusual callsign. In a worldwide contest, rare stations, occasional operators, and stations that do not submit logs are perfectly possible.

The question arises when multiple such callsigns appear to form a coherent temporal and operational pattern.

What Is Exhibit B?

Tim Shoppa, N3QE, took all the QSOs made with these suspicious callsigns and placed them into a single chronological timeline.

This approach is important because it allows the overall pattern to be observed.

Instead of asking:

“What happened with 4S7KM?”

or:

“What happened with HZ1TT?”

we can examine the sequence of all these stations together.

The resulting timeline appears repeatedly to show a pattern such as:

rare callsign → several WRTC stations → disappearance → another rare callsign → several WRTC stations

This repeated pattern is what attracted the attention of investigators.

An Unusual Sequence of Rare Callsigns

The N3QE timeline contains sequences in which one rare station is worked successively by several WRTC teams, followed, within a relatively short period, by another rare callsign.

One example is the sequence:

9M2LAN → 4F3OM

Within approximately eleven minutes, both callsigns appear in the context of QSOs with multiple WRTC teams.

This can be interpreted in a perfectly normal way: two rare stations from different parts of the world were active in the contest and were being found by WRTC teams.

But there is another possible interpretation:

Could one operator, or a coordinated group of operators, have been providing multipliers using several different callsigns?

The timeline alone cannot determine which explanation is correct.

The ZP5KO and TI1W Example

Another episode analyzed in the timeline involves ZP5KO.

Within approximately fifteen minutes, the station is worked by numerous WRTC teams. Shortly afterwards, TI1W appears in the timeline and is also worked by several teams.

The pattern is:

ZP5KO → many WRTC stations → TI1W → many WRTC stations

From a contest perspective, this can be completely legitimate. A rare station running stations and being chased by multiple teams is normal contest behavior.

The question arises because similar patterns appear repeatedly with several of the callsigns under investigation.

The ZS6WAR Sequence

One of the most interesting sequences is associated with ZS6WAR.

Within approximately eleven minutes, the callsign is worked by a significant number of WRTC stations in a very dense succession.

By itself, this is not suspicious. A rare station can be extremely valuable in a competition such as WRTC.

The issue is the wider context.

Following this sequence, the timeline continues with:

4S7KM → HZ1TT → 4F3OM → HL2CFY → 9M2LAN → 9M8YY

Geographically, these callsigns represent extremely distant regions:

• South Africa;
• Sri Lanka;
• Saudi Arabia;
• the Philippines;
• South Korea;
• Malaysia;
• Central America;
• South America.

Viewed individually, all of these stations could be perfectly legitimate.

Viewed together, and in the temporal order in which they appear, they raise a legitimate question:

Is it possible that these callsigns were, in reality, operated by one person or by a coordinated operation?

The chronology alone cannot answer that question.

What Is — and Is Not — Demonstrated?

This is where an objective approach is essential.

What Does the Timeline Appear to Demonstrate?

Exhibit B shows a temporal pattern that deserves investigation:

• multiple rare callsigns;
• appearances within relatively close time windows;
• numerous QSOs with WRTC stations;
• later reappearances of some of the callsigns;
• a disproportionate distribution of certain QSOs among particular teams.

These are observable data points.

What Does the Timeline NOT Prove?

The timeline alone does not prove:

• that there was a single operator;
• that the callsigns were pirated;
• that any particular WRTC team was complicit;
• that the final results should be cancelled.

Additional evidence is required for such conclusions.

Who Could Have Been Affected?

One sensitive aspect of the investigation is the distribution of the QSOs.

According to the analysis, teams such as MB2M and MB2A worked a significant number of the callsigns from the suspect list.

This raises an obvious question:

Why did certain teams work significantly more of these stations than others?

However, there are two fundamentally different interpretations.

Possibility One: Superior Performance

Perhaps these teams were simply more efficient at:

• identifying rare stations;
• searching for multipliers;
• exploiting band changes;
• taking advantage of propagation conditions.

In a competition at WRTC level, even small differences in operating efficiency can produce significant differences in the number of multipliers found.

Possibility Two: An External Operation

Another possibility is that one operator or a group of operators deliberately transmitted certain callsigns in the direction of particular teams.

If this were confirmed, some WRTC teams might have worked the stations in good faith, without knowing that the signals were being generated by unauthorized operators.

This leads to one of the most important distinctions in the entire controversy:

A false QSO does not automatically mean that the operator who logged it cheated.

If a competitor hears a callsign, exchanges the report, and receives what appears to be a valid response, there may be no reasonable way for that competitor to know that the person behind the callsign was not its legitimate operator.

Four Possible Scenarios

At this stage, I can see at least four possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: Real, Completely Independent Stations

All twelve callsigns are legitimate, each operated by different people, and the chronology is simply the result of propagation and contest strategy.

This is entirely possible.

Scenario 2: One Operator Using Multiple Callsigns

One operator may have illegally used several real callsigns.

This scenario would elegantly explain the sequence of rare callsigns.

However, it would require direct radio evidence to be proven.

Scenario 3: Several Coordinated Operators

From a technical perspective, this scenario may actually be more realistic than the single-operator theory.

A group of people could coordinate several stations and callsigns, providing particular multipliers to particular teams.

Scenario 4: An Operation Designed to Compromise Certain Teams

There is also the possibility that someone deliberately attempted to compromise certain teams by generating a suspicious pattern of QSOs in their logs.

However, this would be an extremely complex operation and would require an explanation of how the actual radio signals were generated and received.

What Evidence Could Clarify the Situation?

In my opinion, the decisive evidence will not come from log analysis alone.

The actual radio signals must be examined.

The most important evidence would include:

1. Audio Recordings

WebSDRs, SDR receivers, and other monitoring systems may contain recordings of the transmissions.

2. CW “Signature” Analysis

Every CW operator has, to some extent, an individual operating style:

• keying speed;
• spacing between characters;
• element length;
• rhythm;
• errors;
• keying characteristics.

If several apparently different callsigns display the same CW signature, the single-operator hypothesis becomes considerably stronger.

3. Verification of the Callsign Holders

Investigators should establish:

• where the operators were located;
• whether they were actually participating in the contest;
• whether they had active equipment;
• whether they can confirm the QSOs;
• whether logs or recordings exist.

4. Reverse Beacon Network Analysis

RBN data may help verify:

• the existence of the signal;
• its frequency;
• the exact time of transmission;
• the locations from which the signal could have been received.

The Most Important Question

In my opinion, the first question should not be:

“Did MB2M cheat?”

or:

“Did MB2A cheat?”

The correct question is:

“Were these QSOs real, and who actually transmitted using these callsigns?”

If it is proven that a pirate operator used legitimate callsigns, some WRTC teams may simply have been victims of manipulation.

In that case, the issue becomes one of QSO validity — not automatically evidence of complicity.

Conclusion

In my opinion, Exhibit B is the strongest piece of circumstantial evidence in this investigation.

The timeline does not definitively prove the existence of a single pirate operator. However, it shows a pattern unusual enough to justify a deep technical investigation.

The repeated sequences of:

rare callsign → 8–15 WRTC stations → another rare callsign → more WRTC stations

cannot simply be ignored.

At the same time, in an international contest involving complex propagation and hundreds of stations, “unusual” does not automatically mean “fraud.”

Therefore, any final verdict should be based on additional evidence:

audio recordings, CW signature analysis, verification of the callsign holders, RBN data, and technical analysis of the actual transmissions.

If several of the suspicious callsigns are found to have the same CW signature, the situation would become extremely serious.

If, on the other hand, each callsign is confirmed by its legitimate operator, from its actual location, with different signals and operating styles, the theory of a single pirate operator would be significantly weakened.

Until then, the most responsible conclusion is a cautious one:

There are sufficient anomalies to justify a serious investigation, but not sufficient public evidence to condemn a WRTC team.

My Most Important Technical Observation

I would not say that Exhibit B proves the existence of a single operator.

I would formulate it this way:

Exhibit B demonstrates a pattern of temporal continuity that is much more compatible with the existence of a coordinated “multiplier operation” than with twelve rare, completely independent stations happening to appear within the same time windows by coincidence.

However, this does not necessarily mean “one person.”

There are several possible scenarios.

Scenario A — Twelve Real, Independent Stations

This is possible.

However, the highly uneven distribution of these contacts among teams such as MB2M and MB2A would still need to be explained.

Scenario B — One Operator Using Multiple Callsigns

This is the most dramatic scenario, and it appears to explain the chronology most elegantly.

One operator could theoretically have used several callsigns, although proving this would require direct technical evidence.

Scenario C — Several Coordinated Operators

In my opinion, this may actually be more technically realistic than the “single operator” scenario.

A group of individuals could have distributed the callsigns among themselves and coordinated the stations.

Scenario D — Deliberate Manipulation Designed to Compromise Certain Teams

The article itself mentions this possibility.

If someone had wanted to compromise MB2M and MB2A, they could potentially have created exactly this kind of pattern.

However, this scenario would still require an explanation of how the actual radio signals were generated and how the resulting QSOs ended up in the contest logs.

My Conclusion

Exhibit B is highly convincing as evidence that something unusual may have occurred.

In particular, the repeated sequences of:

rare callsign → 8–15 WRTC stations → another rare callsign → 8–15 WRTC stations

and the subsequent reappearance of some of the callsigns within the same overall chronology are difficult to ignore.

However, in my opinion, the timeline alone is not sufficient to condemn a WRTC team.

Rather, it demonstrates that the actual radio signals need to be analyzed — not just the logs.

If recordings were to confirm, for example, that 4S7KM, HZ1TT, 4F3OM, and ZS6WAR share the same CW “fist,” the situation would become extremely serious.

Conversely, if the signals exhibit completely different operating styles, the theory of a single operator would be significantly weakened.

There is one more important point.

I would not necessarily consider MB2M or MB2A guilty simply because they worked more of these stations.

The correct question is whether any of these contacts were false and, if so, whether the WRTC operators had any reasonable way of knowing that this was the case.

That is a question of QSO validity — not automatically evidence of complicity.

A similar article examining the allegations surrounding WRTC 2026 can be found here:

The Integrity Question: Inside the WRTC 2026 Multiplier Investigation

73 de Hadrian – YO2BTW