{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "An agent looks good in demos, but you cannot tell which product tasks it fails.",
    "change": "Use the study's evaluation idea to inspect a small set of tasks with human-checked answers.",
    "baseline": "Your current evaluator and a manually reviewed reference set.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Agreement with human review, missed failures, false alarms, and evaluation cost per task.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2609.15319",
  "title": "Clean Scores, Buried Evidence, and Confident Wrong: A Receipt-Based Audit of Frontier Agentic QA",
  "summary": "The method replaces answer-level benchmark scoring with statement-level provenance receipts, condition-aware scoring, and human-adversarial verification when evaluating agentic QA systems. It costs additional evaluation engineering: extracting claims, attaching source evidence per claim, designing buried-evidence test conditions, and allocating human review time, all feasible on a single GPU or API budget. It can fail if receipts are generated by the same model being audited, if claim extraction misses fabricated structural assertions attached to accurate numbers, or if the human verification step becomes a rubber stamp under production pressure.",
  "rationale": "Claim-level provenance auditing is an inexpensive process discipline, not a scale-dependent technique, and the paper's documented failure mode of confident fabrication mixed with correct numbers is directly relevant to any production deployment of agentic QA on constrained infrastructure.",
  "technique": "Receipt-based claim-level auditing of agentic QA",
  "family": "avaliacao_de_agente",
  "recommendation": "adotar",
  "published": "2026-09-14",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15319",
  "independent_implementations": 0,
  "total_implementations": 0,
  "stars": 0,
  "citations": 0,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The method replaces answer-level benchmark scoring with statement-level provenance receipts, condition-aware scoring, and human-adversarial verification when evaluating agentic QA systems. It costs additional evaluation engineering: extracting claims, attaching source evidence per claim, designing buried-evidence test conditions, and allocating human review time, all feasible on a single GPU or API budget. It can fail if receipts are generated by the same model being audited, if claim extraction misses fabricated structural assertions attached to accurate numbers, or if the human verification step becomes a rubber stamp under production pressure.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15319",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "no_equations",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "2026-10-06",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}