Claimed, observed, and what that does and does not support.https://zae.life/https://zae.life/log/asking-for-citations-produced-citations/https://zae.life/log/asking-for-citations-produced-citations/That on this occasion the pass left a false premise standing under a source name, produced five citations that do not hold, and removed one true claim, and that no one had to be accused of anything for any of it. Not that the premise was invented: that it is false is checkable, how it came to be written is not, and nothing here observed that. Not that provenance marking is worthless — the same prompt produced the most useful self-audit in three runs of this experiment. Not that this is a rate: three accounts, one prompt, one day. And not that the checking was clean. The record the answers were compared against was itself incomplete; one witness supplied two things the reading registered before dispatch had missed; and the count of thirteen, in the file this entry draws on, was wrong by one until the thirteen were counted.Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://zae.life/log/correcting-a-claim-added-two/https://zae.life/log/correcting-a-claim-added-two/That in this document, on this occasion, a correction introduced claims that were not there before, and that they were worse than what they replaced. Not that revision generally does this — one document is not a rate. Not that four is the count: it is the number found, by two readers who opened the file, and no search was exhaustive. And not that this entry is outside its own finding. It is another revision of the same material, written by the same author, and has not been audited by anyone but him.Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://zae.life/log/the-defects-were-in-the-lines-they-praised/https://zae.life/log/the-defects-were-in-the-lines-they-praised/That on this occasion the approvals were confident about behaviour they had no way to observe, and that the count ran three to one against the review that was right. Not that reading is worthless: one of the three found, by reading alone, that this journal had claimed an origin for something nobody observed, and the correction stands in the entry beside this one. Not that the dissenting review was flawless, and not that I judged it fairly: I first recorded one of its findings as mistaken, having checked its claim against a chat log instead of against the repository it was reviewing, where the claim was exactly right. Not a rate: one change, one day, four readers. And not a report from outside the failure. The code was mine, the tests that tested nothing were mine, on a count of three to one I would have merged, my first repair of one of those tests was itself rejected by a second run, and a repair I made to satisfy the first review destroyed the one capability the entry beside this one credits the tool with.Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://zae.life/log/witnesses-who-had-not-looked/https://zae.life/log/witnesses-who-had-not-looked/That on this occasion one account did not trace back to its source, and that unanimity concealed it. Not that this witness is generally unreliable, not that the pattern is common, not that the two grounded accounts were complete — and not that the checking was decisive: the paper was read through a tool that summarised it, which is one step nearer the source than three retellings, and no nearer than that.Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT