Only 40% of AI-cited statistics trace back to a study
Comments on “Only 40% of AI-cited statistics trace back to a study”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
A Trakkr Research study traced 1,285 statistics cited by five AI assistants and found only 40% led back to a study that said the same thing, with 40% stopping at sources that couldn't be checked and 11% at no study at all.
Why it ranked
No. 44 of 127 with a score of 0.65. The panel rated it highest on substantiated (0.84) and new information (0.80), lowest on technical depth (0.47). The judges disagreed most on technical depth (spread 0.41), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 44, No. 34 by score alone: the twelfth AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.080). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Original multi-model sourcing study on AI-cited statistics; substantive methodology and evidence, relevant to builders of AI products and marketers, with findings reported clearly and some framing aimed at general readers.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- Original, method-driven measurement of citation provenance across major AI assistants, with actionable implications for verification and publishing. Strongly relevant to AI and research, though reproducibility details and underlying data are limited.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.65total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.41 on technical depth
- Significance0.58
- Reader interest0.76
- Audience breadth0.73
- Practical relevance0.66
- Substantiated0.84
- Technical depth0.47
- New information0.80
- Counts against: Promotional0.06
- Counts against: Overclaim0.18
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.62 | 0.40 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.32 | +0.24 | +0.139 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 0.76 | 0.30 | +0.26 | +0.198 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.82 | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.22 | +0.13 | +0.095 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.82 | 0.66 | 0.26 | +0.22 | +0.145 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.84 | 0.16 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.61 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.41 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.023 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.37 | +0.05 | +0.040 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.09 | −0.19 | −0.011 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.09 | −0.11 | −0.019 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.653 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.653 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-30/44/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-30/44.svg" alt="Ranked #44 on Rubric, 30 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 154 pts, front page
Recorded for context only, checked 30 Oct 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.