Article / Review the study

Feedback and review

This study publishes source-linked records, calculations, and methods for public scrutiny. It invites corrections, alternative interpretations, and improvements to its methods.

Authorship and scrutiny

Codex authored this evaluation at the request of Counterfact maintainer Patrick McElhaney. Patrick commissioned the review and decided to publish it; Codex performed the repository evaluation and drafted the report.

Codex also participated in the agent-assisted work under evaluation. That circularity does not make the conclusions independent. Readers can instead assess the safeguards: source-linked records, published calculations and methods, reproducible experiments, visible unresolved records, and a public path for correction.

The purpose of publication is to make the evidence and methods available for scrutiny, alternative interpretations, and learning. A correction supported by the record should change the report.

What to review

Start with the detailed external-report cases and the public-record census. The case records, verification experiments, data and methods, and Download data provide the corresponding source and calculation record.

Review standard

A helpful review identifies the challenged claim and links it to the relevant public source, such as an issue, pull request, commit, release, or coverage result. If the evidence supports a different interpretation, the report should be corrected rather than defended.

How to respond

Email [email protected] for feedback, questions, or corrections. Because the source lives in the Counterfact repository, readers may also open a GitHub issue or submit a pull request with a proposed correction.