Unverified50% confidenceEventExact time
In that blind review experiment, Grok gave 40/40 OK on the first pass but all rationale fields were empty, and it failed to detect the objective error where the source text wrote 1 but the output multiplicity was 0, so that review was marked invalid.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/13/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/11/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIn manually proofread samples, the character error rate was only 0.68% when the text was clearly legible, but approximately 45% of sampled passages were completely uncorrectable due to source quality issues.70% similarUnverifiedBenign paraphrases shifted support judgments by only 0%–2.5% under the blind-verifier prompt.69% similarUnverifiedPlacing verbose padding on the correct answer causes the judge's score to plummet—Grok non-reasoning hard-question scores dropped from 0.875 to 0.19—indicating that verbosity bias exists only in reverse.67% similarUnverifiedAccording to Jev's official blog, its 0% hallucination rate does not come from empirical testing; what is actually guaranteed is only that the returned answer conforms to the permitted schema.65% similarUnverifiedStacking approximately 3 common spelling errors in a single message causes the true positive rate of a single-position prompt injection probe to drop by 12 percentage points at FPR=1%.65% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1017269API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1017269MCP
get_claim(id=1017269)