You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable



Access restricted
We've detected unusual activity from your network. Access to this page is temporarily restricted.
Are you a researcher?
Log in or sign up as a ResearchGate member to verify your access.
Log in
Create account
Ray ID: a3becb63482c10cb
Client IP: 208.110.231.2
©
2008-2026
ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.
</reference>

<statements>
1. Modern vehicles operate increasingly within a regime of shared control, an intermediate state between full human manual operation and complete automated autonomy
2. This technological transition creates an acute socio-technical tension: automated sub-systems physically actuate lateral and longitudinal controls while statutory and common-law regimes continue to treat the human occupant as the primary dynamic operator who is strictly accountable for collision avoidance
3. Understanding the legal viability of this allocation requires an examination of the automated driving system's operational architecture and the cognitive limits of human supervision
4. The engineering assumption underlying Level 2 shared control—that an untrained human can remain visually and cognitively vigilant while a machine executes physical vehicle stabilization—conflicts directly with human factors engineering and cognitive ergonomics
5. When an ADAS demonstrates high functional reliability over long stretches of highway transit, the operator experiences automation complacency, characterized by a rapid decline in visual sampling and situational monitoring
6. Complementing complacency is automation bias, the cognitive heuristic whereby humans uncritically trust algorithmic outputs and assume that the absence of a machine alert confirms the absence of physical hazard
7. By removing physical motor control and tactile steering feedback, the ADAS severs the driver's sensorimotor integration, producing an acute decay in situational awareness
8. The architecture of shared control thus creates a structural contradiction: it designs the human out of active physical operations while relying entirely on immediate human cognitive intervention to resolve system-level corner cases
9. The civil litigation arising from ADAS-involved collisions exposes deep structural gaps between traditional tort principles and shared automated driving
10. This doctrine intersects directly with commercial marketing strategies known as "autonowashing"
11. By aligning technical standards, evidentiary transparency, and statutory compensation schemes, regulatory frameworks can allocate liability fairly across the human-machine driving interface
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.