Start with two full samples. Sign in for this edition’s free story. Sources and corrections stay open.
What the pen marks mean
rememberThe takeaway: what to remember
figureThe number that matters
evidenceThe evidence line
rulingThe ruling
claimThe claim that fails
Each mark is drawn once, as you reach it. Numbers are only circled when they come from the story’s own figures.
01 / JobsTrue, butFree sample
The Guardian says 90% of executives see no productivity gain from AI. The survey behind it looked back over the last 3 years, and the same executives predict a 1.4% boost.
The Guardian, in an analysis by Taylor Telford headlined 'Companies rushed in on AI. Now some are pulling back', dated 13 October 2026 ·
AI illustration
The number matches the survey. What the sentence drops is the time frame and the forecast, and nothing in the survey quotes in this record measures companies pulling back.
The reality check
The NBER abstract of Firm Data on AI says nine-in-ten executives report no impact on employment or productivity over the last 3 years. The same executives predict AI will boost productivity at their firms by an average of 1.4%. A second Atlanta Fed paper says gains are positive and expected to strengthen in 2026.
Why care? When a story says executives see no AI payoff, ask which years the question covered. A look back at the last 3 years is a different finding from a verdict on what firms plan next.
Take this with youThe Guardian says 90% of executives see no AI productivity gain yet. The survey behind it looks back three years, and the same executives predict a 1.4% productivity boost over the next three.
Open the evidence5 source pages +
The claim we checked
90% of executives say AI efforts have yet to translate to productivity gains at their companies, according to an Atlanta Federal Reserve working paper.
These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.
Bank of America did add 1,000 contractors to patch software. Its CEO tied them to AI models including Mythos, not to Mythos alone, and the cost was lumped in with anti-money laundering work.
Headline trending on r/artificial, summarising CNBC's 14 October 2026 report of remarks by Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan ·
AI illustration
The number and the speaker check out: Brian Moynihan said it on CNBC. What spread is tidier than what he said. The flaws came from AI models including Mythos, and the cost was never split out.
The reality check
CEO Brian Moynihan told CNBC the bank put on 1,000 contractors for patching in the second quarter, on top of 3,000 staff, for flaws exposed by AI models including Mythos. The Register reports he did not split the third-quarter remediation cost between AI or Mythos and anti-money laundering work.
Why care? When a headline credits one AI model with a hiring wave, read the exact quote. Here the bank named a class of models, and the only cost figure it gave mixes AI patching with a regulatory clean-up.
Take this with youBank of America's CEO did add 1,000 patching contractors. He tied them to flaws found by AI models including Mythos, and the cost was reported in one figure with anti-money laundering work.
Open the evidence3 source pages +
The claim we checked
Anthropic's Mythos found so many software flaws that Bank of America hired 1,000 contractors to fix them.
These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.
Accenture announced it would train 30,000 people on Claude, then told many staff it will centrally fund $29 a month each. The cap is real. It is also a billing rule, not a ban.
Viral posts on 15 and 16 October 2026, based on a tech news report of an internal Accenture notice ·
AI illustration
Reporters saw the notice. Use above $29 is not cut off in this record; it is charged to a project or team, and Premium staff are reported to get $250 a week.
Free with your account
Sign in for this free check.
This edition’s selected free story opens after sign-in.
As eight states sue OpenAI over ChatGPT's alleged harms, its own headline safety score is 91% on suicide conversations. OpenAI says that score came from a hard test set whose error rates are not representative of average production traffic.
OpenAI, in its post 'Strengthening ChatGPT's responses in sensitive conversations', 27 October 2025; now cited as Iowa and seven other states sue OpenAI ·
AI illustration
The 91% is real, and so is the 0.15% of weekly users OpenAI says show explicit suicide-planning indicators. What this record lacks is the rate that matters to the suits: how often ChatGPT misses in live conversations.
Members · 30 days free
See what the evidence actually shows.
Members read the full check on every story: what the evidence shows, why it matters to you and the one line to take with you. Every past edition, re-verified, and the Receipts Pack come with it. A$89 a year, about A$0.24 a day.
At sign-up: 30 days free. Payment card required. One introductory trial per customer.
Your trial ends 30 days after you start. Unless you cancel before then in Account → Manage subscription, we charge A$89 for the first year. It renews automatically at A$89/yr until cancelled.
You can ask for a full refund within 14 days after any annual payment, renewals included, with no reason needed, by emailing [email protected]. This voluntary refund does not limit your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
BS Killer is published by Inferno Tech Pty Ltd, ABN 27 647 413 474.
Open the evidence3 source pages +
The claim we checked
OpenAI's automated evaluations score its new GPT-5 model at 91% compliant with desired behaviors in self-harm and suicide conversations, up from 77% for the previous model.
These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.
A curated directory. Check each entry’s date and sources.
Make a little room for clarity.
Get the next checked edition in your inbox.
At sign-up: 30 days free. Payment card required. One introductory trial per customer.
Your trial ends 30 days after you start. Unless you cancel before then in Account → Manage subscription, we charge A$89 for the first year. It renews automatically at A$89/yr until cancelled.
You can ask for a full refund within 14 days after any annual payment, renewals included, with no reason needed, by emailing [email protected]. This voluntary refund does not limit your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
