Saved examples and methodology.

Recorded checks, the stamp walkthrough, input boundaries and historical charts. Try the live checker or read the evidence index.

Historical charts use all 357 claims (91 dev + 266 held out), corrected gold. The held-out headline is 240/266 (90.2%), false support 1/139. Coverage ≠ accuracy. Post-hoc rechecks are labelled separately.

How it works

A short path from a social post to a source you can open.

  1. Find the claim

    The AI uses Meta's Muse Spark models to find each number, period, and comparison in the post.

  2. Open the filing

    It looks up the company's SEC filing for the same company, number, and time period.

  3. Code decides

    Code, not the AI, compares the numbers and gives the final True, False, or Can't check verdict.

What it can check

A real post, checked.

Post

True False Can't check

Loading the report...

Does it work?

Adding an SEC lookup and simple checks raises accuracy for all three ways to run Muse.

Historical full-set comparison: 357 claims, including 91 development claims. Corrected gold; failures count as wrong. These are not held-out scores.

Tested on the evaluation claims with known answers.

For researchers

    Why you can trust it

    The source and the rules stay visible.

    • Every answer links to the filing.
    • The AI cannot change the numbers it quotes. If the quote changes, it is rejected.
    • We publish our own mistakes in BUILD_LOG.md.

    Filing passage