Unverified50% confidenceBenchmarkExact time
Corrupted reasoning chains shifted support judgments by 10%–22% under the blind-verifier prompt.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/2/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIn 10%–25% of cases, reasoning about the hypothetical grader pulled the agent's work away from the user's original specification.78% similarUnverifiedBenign paraphrases shifted support judgments by only 0%–2.5% under the blind-verifier prompt.75% similarUnverifiedThe impact of reasoning-chain corruption on final answers was relatively small (2%–30%), and only 2.9%–35.3% of support-judgment flips co-occurred with answer changes.73% similarUnverifiedPrecision bias refers to the tendency for people to assign higher credibility to statements containing precise numbers; experiments show that subjects rated the credibility of "41.3%" significantly higher than "approximately 40%".70% similarUnverifiedAmong 10 corrupted reasoning chains accepted by the model, blind human auditors would have rejected or flagged as unclear 9 of them.68% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/966689API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/966689MCP
get_claim(id=966689)