Over at Tradwitch.com (link goes to the internet archive of this thread, due to Tradwitch.com now being offline) from a couple of years ago:

“This leads to the dual quandary of “I can neither confirm nor deny…” and “they are either a liar or an Oathbreaker…”

Most people seem to take the first statement as confirmation that the material is Oathbound, yet by confirming something as being actual Oathbound material, that person is then violating their own oath.

To paraphrase the Freemasons, “to know if it’s Oathbound, you have to be bound to it by that Oath.””

Sort of an interesting discussion over there that withered away.