Lifetime-valid decisions by continually evolving AI analysts
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
This paper addresses a gap in Type I error control for AI analysts that keep changing: prompt edits, tool additions, and model swaps can each shift the false-positive rate, and adaptive updates can overfit to past feedback.
Score
0.69total under rubric v2.0
- Significance0.65
- Reader interest0.70
- Audience breadth0.64
- Practical relevance0.67
- Substantiated0.89
- Technical depth0.92
- New information0.89
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.27
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.28 | +0.25 | +0.163 |
| Reader interest | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.30 | +0.20 | +0.141 |
| Audience breadth | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.22 | +0.10 | +0.064 |
| Practical relevance | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.67 | 0.30 | +0.15 | +0.100 |
| Substantiated | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.14 | +0.10 | +0.089 |
| Technical depth | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.19 | +0.10 | +0.092 |
| New information | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.19 | +0.10 | +0.089 |
| Promotional | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.15 | −0.006 |
| Overclaim | 0.42 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.24 | −0.15 | −0.040 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.692 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.692 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN —
Recorded for context only, checked 24 Oct 2026, 08:53 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.