[Grammar] without the fact being known... What does it mean?

[pseudo]

1-1. This is a story written by him.
1-2. This is a story being written by him.

I think past participles mean the passive and something that has been finished.
I think 1-1 means a story that has been written by him.
However, 1-2 can mean the passive and the progressive.
So I think 1-2 means a story that is being written by him.

2. Presumably four million seals could not compete with commercial fishermen for the same species without the fact being known.

I happened to meet this sentence and I would like to ask about the phrase 'without the fact being known'.
Does it have to be 'without the fact known', or 'without the known fact'?
'know' is a stative, so it can't be used for progressive tense.
We cannot say 'without the fact which is being known'. can we?

There is another chance.
If 'being' is not a present participle but a gerund, it can make sense.
However, the question still remains whether 'without the known fact' and 'without the fact known' make sense or not.

Thanks in advance.

 

[BobK]

1-1. This is a story written by him. :tick:
1-2. This is a story being written by him. :-? Not ungrammatical, but artificial-sounding. It could be improved by the addition of 'that is' before the participle.l
.
.
.
2. Presumably four million seals could not compete with commercial fishermen for the same species without the fact being known. :tick:

2 needs the 'being'; your alternatives are not acceptable - 'known fact' certainly doesn't work. What the sentence means is that the fishermen would have known [that is - they couldn't have failed to realize] that 4 million seals were competing with them.

b