How we work
We read original test reports, research papers, official statements and release histories. We ask what actually happened, under what conditions, and what the source does not establish.
A statement is not the same as a successful test. Repeated news stories are not independent confirmation. Unknown means information is missing, not that a capability cannot exist.
What the ratings mean
- Not enough information
- Insufficient inspected evidence for the exact criterion; not evidence of nonexistence.
- Reported, not yet verified
- An attributable original statement; accessible evidence does not establish the capability itself.
- Shown in practice
- A primary physical test supports the scoped property. For evolution, dated release records establish the release sequence, not performance.
- Independently confirmed
- Two independent primary evidence lines for the same system/version and compatible conditions. Reprints and trials within one study do not count.
How much confidence to place in a finding
- Low
- Attribution only, ambiguity or major gaps. For unknown, this is not confidence in absence.
- Medium
- A specific primary basis with important limits or no independent replication.
- High
- Independent converging observations and well-bounded alternatives.
What we still need to know
Bounded review of 5–26 October, including newly located accounts of older events. Public protocols, independent replication and global coverage remain incomplete.
Rules used for this review: 1.0.0
Download the complete research record ↓
About the project & contact
Project by: Maksym Kuzmenko
Have a source, a correction or a different reading of a finding? Get in touch and include a link to the relevant assessment.
max.kuzmenko@gmail.comLinkedIn ↗