The evidence states 'AGI is a [FILTERED] that can match the learning efficiency of humans.' The learning-efficiency component is directly visible and matches the claim. The claim's noun, 'system,' is redacted and cannot be verified. The prosecution also notes that the passage may not be the source's primary or complete definition, and the defense does not rebut this. Because the claim adds a specific term the visible evidence does not show, support is partial.

Missing: The unredacted noun that defines AGI, and surrounding context showing whether this is the source's primary definition.

The passage states, 'The human mind is our only existence proof of general intelligence. As such, we set it as our reference point to judge AI.' This maps directly to both components of the claim: the human mind as the only existence proof and as the reference point for judging AI. The prosecution's concerns about scope and the absence of justification concern claims the claim does not make. The defense's note that other researchers might dispute the 'only' framing describes external disagreement, not a contradiction of what the source says. The claim reports the source's stance rather than asserting it is correct, so it is not weakened by these points.

Missing: None required for the claim as stated. A qualifier that this is the source's assertion, not established fact, could improve precision.

The passage states that 'a [FILTERED] is able to adapt to new problems it has not seen before and that its creators (developers) did not anticipate.' The adaptation criterion, including unforeseen problems and developers' expectations, is directly supported. However, the subject is redacted, so 'general intelligence' is not visible. The phrase 'This means that' indicates the criterion follows from an unseen antecedent, so it is unclear whether the source defines general intelligence this way or states a consequence or illustration. The prosecution and defense both identify this gap, and neither resolves it.

Missing: The unredacted subject of the sentence and the preceding text that 'This means' refers to, which would establish whether this is a definition of general intelligence.

Evidence 5b2205864475 directly states that the automation-of-economically-valuable-work definition is 'an incorrect measure of intelligence' and 'a useful goal.' This maps closely to the claim's core assertion. However, the key noun in the quoted definition is replaced by '[FILTERED]', so the claim's word 'system' is an inference rather than a verified quotation. The basis for the 'incorrect' judgment is also not shown beyond the single sentence. The core stance is verified, but the exact wording of the definition is not.

Missing: The unfiltered quoted definition, to confirm the word 'system'. Surrounding text explaining why the source considers the definition incorrect rather than merely incomplete.

Evidence a7d7d77a5f18 states 'we propose that AGI should be defined in terms of capabilities rather than processes,' which matches the claim exactly. The prosecution's concerns concern the rationale and the meaning of 'capabilities' versus 'processes'. The claim only asserts that the source proposes this, not that the proposal is justified or that the terms are defined, so those concerns do not undermine the claim as written.

Missing: None required for the claim as stated. The source's rationale would be needed only if the claim asserted merit.

Evidence a28789a87959 states 'Given that modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test,' which directly matches the claim that the source states this. The claim concerns what the source states, and the passage confirms that statement. The prosecution's objections (no citation, undefined 'pass', undated 'modern') concern the factual reliability of the source's assertion and the precision of its wording. These are real limitations but do not change whether the source makes the statement.

Missing: Citation or named study supporting the empirical assertion, and a definition of 'pass' and the framings involved, if the claim is to be read as verified fact rather than as the source's statement.

The cited passage states that the Turing Test criterion 'is insufficient for operationalizing or benchmarking AGI,' which matches both the operationalizing and benchmarking elements of the claim. The claim is framed as what 'the source argues,' which correctly reflects the passage's hedged judgment ('it seems clear'). The prosecution's objections concern an overgeneralization to 'all framings' and a claimed unsupported benchmarking element. However, the claim text does not assert 'all framings,' and the passage's own wording covers benchmarking directly. The prosecution's points go to the strength of the source's reasoning, not to whether the source makes this argument.

Missing: None required for the attributed claim. If the claim is later read as asserting a general fact rather than the source's argument, additional evidence on the Turing Test's scope would be needed.

The passage states that shared operationalizable definitions 'will support' comparisons between models and risk assessments and mitigation strategies. This verifies the listed benefits as the source's stated position. Two components are not verified: (1) the excerpt refers to 'these concepts' without naming AGI, so the identification of the referent as AGI rests on context not shown; (2) the passage is forward-looking, while the claim's 'support' is framed as an established benefit. The claim's 'states that' framing is accurate for the stated benefits, so the mismatch is limited to the referent and the tense.

Missing: The preceding or surrounding text that names 'these concepts' as AGI definitions. Optionally, any mechanism or example showing the benefits are realized rather than projected.

The defense's supporting passage ('ARC-AGI is the only AI benchmark that measures our progress towards general intelligence') comes from source af5c229feab3, not from source 00202a25ec76, which is the source the claim attributes to. The cited evidence therefore does not establish what this source states. Even on its own terms, the passage is a self-description by the benchmark's developers ('our progress'), which does not support a neutral, field-wide exclusivity claim. The word 'only' is an absolute comparative assertion with no comparative evidence presented, and the prosecution's point that other benchmarks are marketed as measuring general capability is unrebutted. The defense did not address the source mismatch or the first-person qualifier.

Missing: A passage from source 00202a25ec76 making this statement, or evidence that the two sources are the same document. Comparative evidence showing that no other AI benchmark measures progress toward general intelligence, and an account of the developers' possible conflict of interest.

The evidence passage 'some even assert that current LLMs are AGIs' directly maps to the claim that some people assert current LLMs are AGIs. The wording differs only slightly ('some even assert' vs. 'some people assert'), and the claim accurately reports the passage as a third-party assertion rather than the source's own position. The prosecution's concern about source attribution is a traceability issue: the claim says 'the source,' but the evidence ID is linked to a different source ID than the other two claims. This is a citation problem, not a substantive mismatch, and it does not undermine the content mapping.

Missing: Confirmation that 49a4537d2af9 belongs to the same source the claim names (the prosecution notes it comes from 00202a25ec76, while the other claims cite af5c229feab3).

The passage 'AGI is a [FILTERED] that can match the learning efficiency of humans' supports the core criterion (matching human learning efficiency). However, the defining noun is redacted, so 'system' is an inference not verified by the evidence. The phrase 'is described as' implies a broader consensus, but the evidence is a single-source passage. The claim also presents one criterion as the definition without indicating whether the source's full definition contains more. 'Learning efficiency' is also left undefined, and the evidence does not clarify it.

Missing: The unredacted noun from the source; the full definition of AGI in the source to show whether learning efficiency is the complete criterion; a clarification of what 'learning efficiency' means in the source.

The passage states that the popular definition of AGI (automating the majority of economically valuable work) 'is an incorrect measure of intelligence,' which matches the claim's central assertion. However, the claim has three weaknesses. (1) It omits the source's qualifier that the definition is 'a useful goal,' which changes the tone from a nuanced critique to a flat rejection. (2) It changes 'One popular definition' to 'the popular definition,' overstating its scope. (3) It replaces the redacted [FILTERED] noun with 'system' without direct support. The core judgment is supported, but the claim's framing is not fully faithful to the passage.

Missing: The unredacted defining noun; confirmation that the source treats this as one of several popular definitions rather than the canonical one.

Evidence: 17 · Sources: 4 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 0 · Sources: 0 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 1 · Sources: 1 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 0 · Sources: 0 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 1 · Sources: 1 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

No contradictions detected.

Criteria: A specific, sourced definition (from a recognized researcher, standards body, or the question's own framing) with explicit, testable conditions, such as performance thresholds across named task domains, generalization requirements, or autonomy requirements. The criteria must be fixed before evidence is weighed, so the answer does not depend on shifting definitions.

Criteria: A list of peer-reviewed papers, system cards, or independently reproduced benchmark results dated on or before October 2026. Each entry must name the system, the benchmark or task, the evaluation protocol, and the measured result, and it must indicate whether the result is publicly reproducible. Coverage should include both strengths and documented failures.

Criteria: A catalogued set of specific claims with the speaker, date, venue, and the evidence cited. Each claim is classified by whether its cited evidence is a published, verifiable result, an internal or unpublished result, a qualitative demonstration, or no evidence. The catalogue should cover claims from multiple organizations, not only one.

Criteria: A set of evaluations conducted by parties not affiliated with the system's developer (such as academic groups, government AI safety institutes, or independent evaluation organizations), each with its methodology and conclusion. The answer must state where independent findings agree or conflict with developer claims, and note any evaluations that were not conducted or not published.

Criteria: An explicit list of each criterion from the definition that lacks adequate evidence, with the specific type of missing evidence stated (for example, no held-out benchmark, no multi-week autonomous task trials, no independent replication, or unavailable model access). Each gap should be tied to the criterion it leaves unresolved.

Limitations

• Search coverage depends on Brave Search results and retrievable public pages
• Certificate metrics measure internal claim-to-evidence integrity, not external truth