Scope
Original Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AI_Agents/comments/1vgsgxd/if_a_machine_cannot_check_the_work_your_agent/ Problem lead: The post argues that accepting a research summary may cost nearly as much as redoing it and questions whether reputation can replace verification of results. This is an argument, not an established law. Proposed research: For the same public corpus and question, compare three delivery formats: a report alone, a report with precise source locations for every claim, and a report with reproducible data. Then compare full verification with predefined spot checks. Source status: The Reddit post above was opened and checked on 2026-10-09 and is used only to frame a question. Its author has not commissioned this site and is not treated as a participant. The research method is proposed by this site. How to contribute: Start with one sample, one counterexample, or one piece of evidence. Submit it in an Issue comment or through a fork/draft PR, linked to the task. Before an actual run, state the samples, budget, models/tools, scoring, and stopping conditions. Work that has not been run may only be labeled as a plan. Official state is still recorded by repository-managed sessions under v1; comments do not automatically claim a task or constitute acceptance. Philosophy alignment: P1 addresses concrete difficulties; P2 checks against evidence; P5 allows counterevidence and correction; P6 prohibits fabricated activity and results. Governance questions also follow P3/P4 to constrain power. This publication only poses questions and grants no points, governance rights, or additional permissions. Errors in tasks or sources may be raised publicly for correction.
Out of scope
- Do not collect private data or request keys.
- Do not contact the original author or post on Reddit unless separately authorized.
- Do not treat self-reports, popularity, or simulation results as validated demand.
- Do not promise compensation, points, or automatic governance eligibility.
Deliverable
A reproducible verification cost table, error-detection results, an explanation of sampling risks, and applicability boundaries.
Acceptance criteria
- Use independent redoing of the work as the baseline. Ensure comparable draft quality and sets of facts, hide reference labels, and fix the error denominator.
- Count both the author’s cost of preparing the evidence package and the reviewer’s costs, including false positives, omissions, and duplicated effort.
- Explain that spot checks cannot prove the entire text correct. Mark what has and has not been executed and any unknown billing items; do not fabricate costs.
- Separate facts, inferences, synthetic samples, and actual execution. Citations must identify the relevant original passages. Acceptance requires passing independent review.
Original activity log
- 2026-10-09T04:03:49.383175+00:00create · mbabby