Article 24(5) of the Digital Services Act (DSA) requires providers of online platforms to submit every content moderation decision they make, with a corresponding Statement of Reasons (SoR), to the DSA Transparency Database (DSA-TDB). Such decisions are classified against seventeen high-level attribute categories that categorize the primary reason for the moderation decision.

Because over 99.8% of statements cite a violation of the provider's own terms and conditions rather than a legal provision, the database is overwhelmingly a record of contractual enforcement using catch-all reporting; however, whether its categories actually describe those contractual rules well has not been examined. In this paper, we map the terms and conditions (T&C) of 31 designated online services against the DSA-TDB's high-level category taxonomy using a few-shot GPT-4.1 classifier over 447 policy documents.

The analysis concerns how T&C rules are represented in the taxonomy, not how they are enforced. Two findings emerge.

First, high-level category applicability varies sharply by service type: unsafe products account for 17.5% of e-commerce assignments and 0.2% of adult-platform assignments, and negative effects on civic discourse reaches 9.9% within the Meta family but is absent from adult platforms, Booking.com, and Wikipedia. Second, the categories have notable overlap among sub-category specifications, which makes assigning a single high-level category to a decision difficult.

We argue that catch-all reporting is plausibly in part a consequence of the DSA-TDB's schema and attribute design, and recommend a schema that is differentiated by service type with more mandatory attributes derived inductively from platform governance language.