Same Evidence.
Your Judgment.

I ran a small experiment about how evidence gets turned into conclusions. The discussion afterward exposed questions the first experiment couldn’t answer.

I’m building the follow-up in public, and you’re welcome to help shape it.

Pick one case. Challenge one assumption. Check one part of the code. You don’t need to review everything, and uncertainty is a useful answer.

You can form a judgment before seeing the model responses. This page does not automatically send it to the author. If you want to go deeper, the methods and original records are available too.

Submission status: This standalone copy does not send or synchronize responses. You can copy feedback and choose to post it in a public GitHub issue. Do not include private or identifying information.

Technical feedback can be shared through public issues or DEV.to comments. The local board is a manually maintained summary, not a complete record.

Different purposes, not a blinded study. This is informal feedback; the original case labels were assigned by the author, not independently adjudicated. Feedback here is not counted as study labels. Formal enrollment is not open, and no independent adjudication route is currently available.

Four synthetic cases from a small exploratory study. The evidence is stipulated; no outside facts are needed. Study labels are author-assigned and have not been independently adjudicated.

Evidence
    Candidate conclusion

    There are no scores or right-answer tallies. These informal judgments are not a blinded, independently adjudicated study set.

    What the model said

    The model (gpt-4.1-mini) was asked the same question once per condition. One response each, shown after your judgment. With one response per condition, differences here are not evidence of an ordering effect.

    Challenge the experiment

    One concern is enough. Say what could be wrong and, if you can, what would separate the explanations.

    Check the machinery

    Look at one part. Report what you checked, even if you found nothing.

    Methods and original records: link to be added

    You raised it → Here’s what changed

    Public concern summaries are maintained manually. This static page is not a complete log of incoming feedback. Unresolved and declined issues should remain visible when recorded.

    For adjudicating reviewers

    The labels in the exploratory pilot were author-assigned, not independently adjudicated. No formal review enrollment is open through this page.