{ "version": 1, "labeler": "llm_judge", "labeler_note": "Claude via Anthropic API. Temperature 0.0. Fresh context per document (single-turn per doc). Prompt included FVS library reference (identification sections for all 20 frames). Produced AFTER curator labels frozen, BEFORE detector run.", "frame_universe": [ "FVS-001", "FVS-002", "FVS-003", "FVS-004", "FVS-005", "FVS-006", "FVS-007", "FVS-008", "FVS-009", "FVS-010", "FVS-011", "FVS-012", "FVS-013", "FVS-014", "FVS-015", "FVS-016", "FVS-017", "FVS-018", "FVS-019", "FVS-020" ], "labels": { "a01_altman_intelligence_age": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "This is a single authored essay, not an iterative AI analytical session where frame lock deepens through refinement cycles." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The essay is polished, confident, and rhetorically smooth while making sweeping empirical claims ('superintelligence in a few thousand days') with zero sourcing or evidence." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI model identity or attribute behaviors to specific AI systems." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a human-authored essay, not an AI interaction loop exhibiting bilateral comfort-compliance narrowing." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve AI system attribution or layered AI infrastructure discussion." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve identity framing in AI interactions." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure-condition framing as an analytical or rhetorical device." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The entire essay is organized around growth, expansion, prosperity, and upward trajectory\u2014'massive prosperity,' 'expanding world,' 'positive-sum games'\u2014as the dominant and largely unexamined frame." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "While risks are briefly mentioned, the document does not systematically organize information around failure modes, vulnerabilities, or conditions under which the narrative breaks." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The essay gestures at downsides ('it will not be an entirely positive story,' labor market disruption) in single sentences while devoting the overwhelming bulk of text to the growth/prosperity narrative, creating a false sense of balanced coverage." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not systematically analyze stakeholders, though it implicitly defaults to a universal 'humanity' perspective without naming it as such." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "Claims like 'superintelligence in a few thousand days' and 'fixing the climate' and 'discovery of all of physics' are presented with high confidence despite being speculative projections with no uncertainty quantification." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a human opinion essay, not AI-generated output; the oracle frame concerns reader posture toward AI-generated authority specifically." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is strongly future-projected, using forecasts of the Intelligence Age as the lens for understanding the present, while making historical precedents (Stone Age to Agricultural Age) serve the forward narrative rather than complicate it." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document frames AI around prosperity and capability expansion rather than cost reduction, optimization, or efficiency metrics specifically." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no citations, data references, or authority appeals; it is explicitly a personal opinion piece." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present multiple perspectives with false equivalence; it is openly one-sided and does not claim to balance competing views." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The essay begins with broad claims about human history and civilization but narrows progressively to a specific thesis about deep learning scaling, treating NVIDIA-era compute scaling as the answer to civilizational questions." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The essay constructs a highly coherent narrative arc from Stone Age to Intelligence Age with smooth logical flow, making the progression feel inevitable and evidence-based when it is largely assertion-based." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The growth/progress/prosperity frame operates as the invisible organizing assumption throughout; the document never names or examines the frame it operates from, treating it as neutral description of reality." } }, "a02_fomc_march_2026": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not refine or deepen a single analytical frame across iterations; it is a brief, formulaic institutional statement." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The prose is institutional and formulaic rather than fluently persuasive; it does not mask analytical weakness through polished delivery." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no attributions about AI model identity or behavior." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a formal regulatory press release, not a product of iterative human-AI prompting dynamics." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve AI system attribution in any form." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity or role framing is present in the document." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical or rhetorical device." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around growth metrics or upward trajectory; it describes a hold decision amid uncertainty." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly foregrounds risks to both sides of the dual mandate, uncertainty about the economic outlook, and Middle East geopolitical risks as the organizing concern for the policy decision." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is intentionally narrow in scope as a policy statement and does not claim comprehensive analytical coverage." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not analyze stakeholder impacts or ask 'for whom'; it addresses only the Committee's mandate and policy stance." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly and repeatedly foregrounds uncertainty ('uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated,' 'implications... are uncertain'), making uncertainty a structural organizing feature." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is an official institutional release, not AI-generated text, and does not position itself in a way that specifically reinforces oracle-mode reader dynamics beyond normal institutional authority." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is present-focused ('has been expanding,' 'have remained,' 'remains elevated') and treats current conditions as the complete picture, making structural historical trends and longer-term projections invisible." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around efficiency, cost reduction, or optimization framing." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document cites no external sources, studies, or data references; it asserts conditions without citation-based credibility framing." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present multiple competing perspectives with false equivalence; the one dissent (Miran) is noted factually without false balance treatment." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document's scope is consistently narrow and explicitly defined as a monetary policy statement throughout; no unannounced narrowing occurs." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document constructs a coherent narrative arc\u2014solid expansion but elevated uncertainty \u2192 hold decision \u2192 data-dependent future adjustments\u2014that flows logically but omits contested data interpretations and the dissenting rationale." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document's institutional frame (central bank dual-mandate policy communication) is relatively visible and conventional rather than invisibly organizing the analysis." } }, "b01_nvidia_investment": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a locked frame; it presents a single-pass analysis without evidence of compounding convergence." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is polished and confident ('genuinely compelling,' 'extraordinary,' 'arguably the deepest') with no sourcing for specific claims like the $150B projection or 70% gross margin figure." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI model identity or attribute behaviors to specific AI systems." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit a bilateral human-AI default loop; it is a standalone analytical piece." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system layers or attribute AI behavior to any system component." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve identity framing or role assignment in AI interaction." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as a structural device to constrain or sharpen its analysis." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is organized around market opportunity, growth projections, margin upside, and competitive entry \u2014 a classic growth frame that treats expansion as the default analytical lens." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "A dedicated 'Strategic Risks Worth Weighting Heavily' section systematically examines failure modes including compute demand compression, geopolitical risk, and market consolidation." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "Risks are mentioned in one short section while growth opportunity, competitive dynamics, and financial upside receive substantially more analytical depth, creating a completeness illusion of balance." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not examine who bears costs beyond investors and the entering company; workers, consumers, and geopolitically affected populations are entirely absent." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "Claims like '$150 billion annually by mid-decade' and '70% gross margins' are presented as near-facts without confidence intervals, source attribution, or acknowledgment of contested forecasting." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not explicitly position itself as authoritative in a way that structurally reinforces oracle-mode reading beyond normal analytical prose." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is future-projected, anchoring analysis in 2026 forecasts and multi-year timelines while treating current NVIDIA dominance as a stable baseline, making structural disruptions to that baseline invisible." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around cost reduction, throughput, or productivity optimization as its primary analytical lens." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "Specific figures ($150B market, 70% gross margins, 3-5 year timelines) and named companies are cited without any sourcing, creating an impression of evidential grounding that is not substantiated." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives with artificially equal weight; it takes a clear analytical position throughout." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document begins with the broad AI accelerator market but narrows progressively to a specific thesis about captive ecosystem entrants, treating that narrower question as if it were the original broad one." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a highly coherent story \u2014 market opportunity leads to competitive analysis leads to financial profile leads to risks leads to conclusion \u2014 where the narrative flow itself creates an impression of analytical rigor." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates entirely within an investor/shareholder frame without naming it as a frame, making alternative frames (labor, geopolitical, societal) structurally invisible." } }, "b02_automation_policy": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a single locked frame; it surveys multiple policy dimensions without deepening one analytical frame progressively." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is polished and confident throughout, presenting contested policy positions (e.g., UBI, robot taxes) with smooth prose that masks the thinness of evidentiary support." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI model identity or attribute behaviors to specific AI systems." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit the bilateral human-AI default loop; it is a standalone policy analysis without interactive prompt dynamics." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system layers or attribute AI behavior to any system component." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No role or identity framing is assigned to any actor in the document in the FVS-006 sense." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure-condition framing as an analytical lever; it frames recommendations positively." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around growth metrics or upward trajectory; it centers on displacement, adjustment, and distribution rather than expansion." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is substantially organized around risks, vulnerabilities, and failure modes of automation-driven displacement, including dependency traps, geographic decline cycles, and narrow benefit distribution." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document covers multiple policy dimensions (education, income, regional, regulation) but treats each briefly, creating an appearance of comprehensive analysis while each section lacks substantive depth." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly raises the stakeholder question of who bears costs vs. who captures benefits (capital owners vs. labour), though it does so unevenly and does not fully analyze non-worker stakeholders." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document acknowledges political and economic contestation (e.g., UBI, robot taxes) but does not systematically surface epistemic uncertainty or distinguish evidence quality across claims." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle, and there is no explicit authority-claiming language that would reinforce reader-treats-as-oracle dynamics." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is predominantly present-and-future oriented, treating automation displacement as an ongoing structural shift, while largely omitting historical precedents of prior automation waves and their actual labor market outcomes." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around efficiency, cost reduction, or productivity optimization as its primary frame; it centers on social adjustment and distribution." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document references Germany's dual apprenticeship model as a reference point but does not fabricate citations or use citation-like language to manufacture false authority." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document gives roughly equal analytical weight to UBI and robot taxes alongside mainstream policy options, without distinguishing the evidentiary basis or expert consensus levels behind each proposal." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document maintains its stated broad scope (government policy response to structural unemployment from automation) throughout without narrowing to a specific sub-question." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a coherent, logically flowing story from problem diagnosis through policy categories to a synthesizing conclusion, with narrative smoothness that substitutes for empirical grounding." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates implicitly from a social-democratic policy frame (state intervention, redistribution, collective bargaining) without naming or examining that frame as one among several possible orientations." } }, "b03_social_media_adolescents": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a single locked frame; it actively moves across multiple perspectives without deepening one frame exclusively." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is polished, fluent, and confident in tone, and several claims (e.g., Przybylski's effect sizes, Twenge's longitudinal findings) are presented without direct citation verification, relying on surface credibility." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no reference to AI model identity or prompt attribution; it is a substantive analysis, not a meta-commentary on AI behavior." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "There is no evidence of bilateral human-AI default narrowing; the document engages with genuine scientific controversy rather than settling into a comfortable default position." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system layers or attribute behavior to any AI system component." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity or role framing is present in the document; it does not assign or discuss personas." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure-condition framing as an analytical lever; it structures analysis around evidence and nuance rather than specifying failure criteria." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around growth metrics, market expansion, or upward trajectory; it is a public health analysis without a growth frame." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The 'Case for Concern' and 'Reasons for Caution' sections systematically examine what could go wrong, failure modes, and conditions under which the positive (dismissive) narrative breaks, structurally applying a risk frame." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document covers multiple analytical dimensions (causation, context, policy, individual vulnerability) but the 'Reasons for Caution' section receives roughly equal weight to 'The Case for Concern,' creating an appearance of balance while the concluding frame ('calibrated concern') subtly dominates the analytical resolution." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not systematically examine who benefits or bears costs across stakeholder groups; it focuses on adolescents as a population without disaggregating platform interests, parents, or policymakers as distinct stakeholders with competing interests." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly surfaces uncertainty \u2014 noting unsettled science, unreliable self-reported data, correlation-causation limits, and cross-national inconsistencies \u2014 making the uncertainty frame a structurally visible organizing feature." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as authoritative oracle knowledge; it explicitly hedges conclusions and acknowledges contested evidence, discouraging oracle-mode reading." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is anchored to a specific temporal inflection point (post-2012 smartphone adoption) and uses this past anchor as the primary lens for understanding current mental health trends, making pre-2012 baselines and longer historical cycles invisible." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around efficiency, cost reduction, optimization, or productivity metrics; it is a public health analysis without an efficiency frame." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document names researchers (Twenge, Haidt, Przybylski) and invokes 'longitudinal research,' 'large datasets,' and 'one frequently cited analogy' without providing verifiable citations, using citation-like language to establish credibility without traceable sourcing." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document gives roughly equal analytical space to the 'Case for Concern' (Twenge, Haidt) and 'Reasons for Caution' (Przybylski) without clearly weighing the relative evidentiary bases of these research programs, structurally treating them as equivalent." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document maintains its stated scope (social media and adolescent mental health) throughout without visibly narrowing to a specific sub-question or platform." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a highly coherent narrative arc \u2014 concern, caution, context, balanced conclusion \u2014 where each section flows logically into the next, producing a sense of epistemic resolution that the underlying contested evidence does not fully support." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates from an implicit 'calibrated moderate expert' frame that treats balance and nuance as the correct epistemic posture without surfacing that this framing itself excludes more activist or more dismissive analytical frames as legitimate options." } }, "b04_llm_customer_support": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a single locked frame; it explicitly presents competing perspectives." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is polished and confident throughout but offers no sourced evidence, data, or citations to support claims like 'cost reduction potential is significant.'" }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI model identity or attribute behaviors to specific models." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit the bilateral comfort-compliance loop; it actively pushes against binary defaults by recommending staged deployment." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system layers or attribute behavior to model vs. infrastructure." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve identity or role framing of AI systems." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure-condition framing as an analytical mechanism; it uses balanced pro/con structure instead." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The 'Case For Deployment' section foregrounds cost reduction, efficiency, volume handling, and quality improvements as primary appeals, reflecting a default growth/efficiency orientation." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The 'Case For Caution' section systematically examines hallucination risk, emotional intelligence gaps, and data privacy failures, applying a genuine risk frame." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document covers multiple dimensions (efficiency, risk, ethics, privacy) but treats each briefly, creating an appearance of completeness without deep analysis of any single dimension." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does mention customers and human agents as affected parties, but does not systematically analyze stakeholder interests, power dynamics, or who bears costs vs. who gains." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document acknowledges uncertainty in some areas (e.g., customer detection of simulated empathy) but does not systematically surface what is unknown or contested about its own claims." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as authoritative oracle-style knowledge; its hedged, balanced tone does not strongly reinforce oracle-reader dynamics." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is present-focused and does not anchor analysis in a specific temporal orientation that hides others." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The efficiency frame is prominent: the document leads with volume handling, cost reduction, resolution time, and freeing human agents as primary justifications for deployment." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no citations or source references; it does not use citation-like language to manufacture credibility." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document gives roughly equal structural weight to pro-deployment and caution arguments without indicating whether the evidentiary bases for each are equivalent." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document maintains its stated scope (LLMs in customer support) throughout without narrowing to a sub-question." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a coherent, well-structured story (appeal \u2192 risks \u2192 balanced path \u2192 conclusion) whose logical flow creates an impression of analytical rigor independent of any empirical grounding." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates from an implicit efficiency-plus-risk-management frame without naming or examining that frame, leaving the reader unaware of what perspectives the frame excludes (e.g., labor displacement, power asymmetry)." } }, "b05_remote_work_productivity": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a single locked frame; it covers multiple dimensions (productivity, culture, cost, talent) without deepening one frame at the expense of others." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is polished, confident, and fluent throughout but offers no sourcing, data, or evidence for its claims, relying entirely on smooth prose to convey authority." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no reference to AI model identity or prompt attribution; it is a policy evaluation guide, not a discussion of AI behavior." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit the bilateral comfort-compliance loop; it actively pushes against default thinking by warning against peer-pressure-driven policy adoption." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system layers or attribute AI behavior to any component; it is about organizational policy." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity or role framing is assigned to any AI or analytical agent in this document." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as a structural device; it frames recommendations positively around what a good policy looks like." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around growth metrics or upward trajectory; it explicitly calls for weighing both sides of the cost-benefit ledger." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "While the document mentions risks (culture erosion, cohesion loss), it does not systematically organize around failure modes or treat risk as its dominant analytical lens." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document covers multiple expected dimensions (productivity, culture, cost, talent, accountability) but treats each in a single short paragraph, creating the appearance of comprehensive analysis without substantive depth in any area." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document consistently adopts the company/leadership perspective without naming it, but it does not meaningfully analyze employee, community, or other stakeholder interests as distinct perspectives." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document presents confident prescriptive claims (e.g., 'culture does not maintain itself automatically') without acknowledging that evidence on remote work outcomes is contested and context-dependent." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle or use citation-like authority signals; it is advisory in tone and does not reinforce reader-treats-as-oracle dynamics through explicit authority claims." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is present-focused and does not anchor analysis in historical data or future projections in a way that hides other temporal orientations." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize primarily around efficiency, cost reduction, or optimization metrics; it explicitly includes culture and talent as non-efficiency considerations." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no citations, references no studies or authorities, and does not use citation-like language to manufacture credibility." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives with artificially equal weight; it takes a clear position that role-specific analysis should drive policy." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document begins with the broad question of evaluating remote work policies but narrows quickly to a mid-sized company lens and then to a handful of internal operational variables, leaving out macroeconomic, legal, and societal dimensions without flagging the narrowing." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a highly coherent story with a logical flow from data to culture to cost to accountability to recommendation, but this narrative coherence is architectural rather than evidence-based, as no data supports the causal claims." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates from an implicit managerial-rationalist frame (deliberate governance, role-specific analysis, structured review cycles) without naming or examining that frame as one of several possible orientations to remote work policy." } }, "b06_quantum_computing_outlook": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative frame refinement; it actively questions the dominant hype frame rather than deepening within it." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The prose is polished and confident, and while it gestures at uncertainty, specific claims (e.g., 'hundreds to thousands of physical qubits') are stated without sourcing or error bars." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document makes no attributions about AI model identity or behavior; it is about quantum computing." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "There is no evidence of a human-AI prompt loop narrowing the analysis; the document engages critically with the field." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system attribution or invisible layers of AI interaction." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity or role framing is present in the document." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical device; it describes the field's state descriptively." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document explicitly resists the growth frame, noting that 'genuine quantum advantage remains largely undemonstrated' and that 'revolution is not yet imminent.'" }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is organized substantially around what could go wrong or remains unresolved: error rates, qubit quality gaps, timeline overestimates, and cryptographic threats." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document covers multiple dimensions (hardware, error correction, applications, investment) but gives only one sentence to quantum ML/optimization and cryptography, creating an illusion of completeness without equal analytical depth." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not examine who benefits or bears costs from quantum computing development; stakeholder perspectives are entirely absent." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly surfaces uncertainty in several places ('years or decades away,' 'theoretically promising but practically unproven'), making the uncertainty frame a genuine organizing feature." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle; it uses hedged language ('cautiously describe,' 'honest assessment') that invites skepticism rather than deference." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is present-focused with a near-term forward projection, making the longer historical arc of quantum computing hype cycles largely invisible except for a brief mention of 'premature' promises." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize around efficiency, cost reduction, or productivity optimization; it is a technical state-of-the-field assessment." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document references Google's 2023 claim, IBM's Condor processor, NIST standardization, and specific companies without citations, using the form of authority-by-reference without verifiable sourcing." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives with false equivalence; it explicitly weights some claims (e.g., topological qubits as 'experimentally early-stage') differently from others." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document begins with 'quantum computing' broadly but narrows primarily to gate-based superconducting and ion-trap hardware, leaving quantum annealing, photonic computing applications, and software stack challenges largely unaddressed." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document tells a coherent arc\u2014NISQ era, error correction challenge, near-term applications, tempered optimism\u2014that flows logically but whose coherence may mask the genuine fragmentation and disagreement within the research community." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates from an implicit 'sober realism' frame that treats hype-correction as neutral objectivity, without surfacing that this framing itself excludes certain optimistic or critical perspectives." } }, "c01_wikipedia_semaglutide": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a factual reference article, not an iterative analytical piece converging on a single frame with increasing sophistication." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a clinical/encyclopedic reference with neutral, technical prose rather than persuasive fluency masking weak content." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI models or attribute behaviors to model identity." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a Wikipedia medical article, not an AI-interaction output shaped by bilateral human-AI defaults." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve AI system attribution or layered AI infrastructure." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity framing or role assignment is present in this medical reference article." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical or rhetorical device." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around growth metrics or market expansion narratives; it is a clinical reference." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The side effects, contraindications, boxed warning for thyroid tumors, and weight regain data systematically organize information around risks and failure conditions of the treatment." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document covers medical uses, side effects, contraindications, and mechanism with roughly proportional analytical depth across sections rather than creating a false impression of completeness while weighting one frame." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not explicitly analyze stakeholder perspectives, but its clinical framing (patient indications, risks) implicitly centers the patient without claiming to represent all stakeholders." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly flags uncertainty in several places, such as 'it is unknown whether semaglutide causes thyroid C-cell tumors in humans' and the theoretical mechanism of blood sugar decrease, surfacing the gap between confidence and evidence." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle; it is a standard Wikipedia reference article with neutral encyclopedic tone and does not explicitly claim authoritative finality." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit a dominant temporal anchoring; it blends historical approval dates, current usage data, and recent regulatory updates without privileging one temporal orientation." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not frame semaglutide primarily through efficiency, cost reduction, or productivity optimization lenses." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document references regulatory bodies (FDA, EU) and a 2019 meta-analysis as evidence sources, which are standard and verifiable citations rather than fabricated or misattributed authority." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives on contested claims with false equivalence; it reports regulatory and clinical findings without manufacturing artificial balance." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document maintains its stated scope as a medical reference on semaglutide throughout without narrowing to an unannounced sub-question." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is structured as a reference article with discrete sections rather than a coherent narrative arc that could substitute story logic for factual accuracy." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document's clinical/regulatory frame is relatively transparent and named (medical uses, side effects, mechanism), rather than operating from an invisible organizing frame." } }, "c02_wikipedia_eu_ai_act": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not iteratively refine a single analytical frame; it presents regulatory provisions descriptively across multiple categories." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a factual encyclopedia article with neutral, informational prose rather than persuasively fluent language masking weak content." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI model identity or attribute behaviors to specific models; it is a policy regulation summary." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not exhibit bilateral human-AI default reinforcement loops; it is a static encyclopedic description of legislation." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not discuss AI system attribution or the layers producing AI behavior; it describes regulatory law." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document contains no identity framing or role assignment dynamics; it is a neutral policy description." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical or rhetorical device; it describes regulatory categories including prohibited uses factually." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around growth metrics or market expansion; it is structured around risk categories and regulatory obligations." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document's entire organizational structure is built around a risk frame\u2014categorizing AI applications by potential harm, with the most space devoted to high-risk and unacceptable-risk categories." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not create a completeness illusion; it is explicitly scoped to regulatory provisions and does not claim to be a balanced multi-perspective analysis." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document partially surfaces a stakeholder frame by noting who bears duties (providers, deployers), who has rights (citizens to complain), and who is affected (individuals subject to high-risk AI decisions), though it defaults to a regulatory-compliance perspective." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present contested projections as facts; it describes enacted legal text and its provisions with appropriate attribution to sources like the European Parliamentary Research Service." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle; it is a descriptive Wikipedia article with standard encyclopedic hedging and sourcing references." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is primarily present-anchored, describing current law, with brief historical context on the legislative timeline; no single temporal orientation dominates misleadingly." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around efficiency, cost reduction, or optimization; it focuses on rights, safety, and regulatory compliance." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document references real sources (European Parliamentary Research Service, stakeholder consultations) in a manner consistent with encyclopedic citation rather than fabricated or misattributed authority." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives with false equivalence; it describes the structure of a single enacted regulation without manufacturing balance between unequal positions." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document begins with the broad EU AI Act but the visible excerpt narrows progressively toward specific provisions (GPAI, FRIA, open-source rules), with the broader societal and political context of the Act largely absent from the shown text." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is structured as a regulatory summary with enumerated categories rather than a coherent narrative arc that could substitute for factual accuracy." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates from an implicit regulatory-compliance frame that treats 'trustworthy AI' as equivalent to compliance with safety thresholds, without surfacing this as a contested framing choice\u2014a point the document itself briefly notes legal scholars have raised." } }, "c03_wikipedia_quantum_supremacy": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not show iterative refinement within a single converging frame; it presents multiple historical milestones and conceptual dimensions without deepening lock on one conclusion." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The prose is clear and encyclopedic but does not substitute fluency for substance; technical claims are grounded in named researchers, dates, and specific algorithms." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a Wikipedia article about a technical topic, not a discussion of AI model behavior or identity attribution." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "There is no evidence of prompt-response loop dynamics or bilateral narrowing; the document is a static encyclopedic entry." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve AI interaction layers or system attribution; it is a technical reference article." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No role or identity framing is present in the document; it does not assign or discuss AI personas." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical lever; it describes the concept of quantum supremacy neutrally." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around growth metrics or market expansion; it is a technical and historical overview." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly notes that quantum supremacy may be 'temporary or unstable' due to unpredictable classical improvements and places achievements 'under significant scrutiny,' structuring part of the analysis around failure conditions." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not claim comprehensive analytical coverage while skewing weight; it is a partial encyclopedic entry that does not pretend to be a complete analysis." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around stakeholder perspectives, benefits, or costs; it is a technical definition and history article." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document explicitly surfaces uncertainty by noting that quantum supremacy 'may be temporary or unstable' and that improvements in classical computing are 'unpredictable,' acknowledging limits of current knowledge." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as an oracle; Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone does not explicitly claim authoritative finality, and the text acknowledges ongoing debate and scrutiny." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document is heavily past-anchored, organizing the narrative through a chronological history from 1936 to the 21st century, which frames quantum supremacy primarily through its historical development rather than current state or future trajectory." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not frame quantum supremacy in terms of efficiency, cost reduction, or productivity optimization; it treats it as a scientific milestone." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "Citations in the document (Turing, Feynman, Shor, Grover, etc.) are real, named, and historically verifiable, not fabricated or misattributed citation-like language." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not present competing perspectives with artificially equal weight; it describes a technical concept and its history without manufacturing false balance between unequal positions." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document begins with the broad concept of quantum supremacy but narrows progressively to specific proposals (boson sampling, random circuit sampling) and a historical timeline, without signaling this scope reduction to the reader." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document constructs a coherent linear narrative from Turing (1936) through Feynman, Deutsch, Shor, and Grover to present-day quantum supremacy, presenting the history as a smooth progression that may obscure dead ends, controversies, or non-linear development." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document operates implicitly from a scientific-progress frame that treats quantum supremacy as a meaningful and achievable milestone without surfacing that this framing is contested (e.g., critics who question whether the milestone is meaningful or well-defined)." } }, "c04_wikipedia_ubi": { "FVS-001": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not converge on a single analytical frame with increasing sophistication; it presents multiple perspectives without deepening one dominant analysis." }, "FVS-002": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The Wikipedia article uses neutral, encyclopedic prose rather than unusually polished or confident language that masks substantive weakness." }, "FVS-003": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is a Wikipedia article, not AI-generated output, and does not involve prompt-model attribution dynamics." }, "FVS-004": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No AI interaction loop or default geometry pattern is present; this is a static encyclopedia entry." }, "FVS-005": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not involve AI system layers or user-model attribution; it is a human-edited reference article." }, "FVS-006": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "No identity framing or role assignment is present in this document." }, "FVS-007": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not use failure framing as an analytical or rhetorical device." }, "FVS-008": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not organize information around growth metrics or upward trajectory; it presents UBI neutrally across historical and policy dimensions." }, "FVS-009": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "While critics' concerns about feasibility and work disincentives are mentioned, the document does not systematically organize around a risk frame." }, "FVS-010": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The article covers multiple dimensions (history, pro/con arguments, examples) but the treatment of each is shallow\u2014critics and proponents are summarized in a single paragraph each, creating an illusion of completeness without substantive analysis of any dimension." }, "FVS-011": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document briefly mentions who benefits and who bears costs but does not systematically organize around a stakeholder frame or make the 'for whom' question its central lens." }, "FVS-012": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document presents contested empirical claims (e.g., whether UBI reduces work, whether it is financially feasible) without surfacing the uncertainty or evidence quality behind each claim, treating them as simple pro/con assertions." }, "FVS-013": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document does not position itself as authoritative oracle; Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view framing and citation conventions signal contestability rather than finality." }, "FVS-014": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document balances historical, present, and future-oriented content without anchoring the reader's perception predominantly in one temporal orientation." }, "FVS-015": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The efficiency frame is not a dominant organizing principle; the document does not primarily frame UBI around cost reduction or productivity optimization." }, "FVS-016": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document references historical figures and programs by name but does not fabricate or misuse citations; the citation-like references are appropriate to encyclopedic form." }, "FVS-017": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The document gives roughly equal analytical weight to proponent and critic positions without indicating which claims have stronger evidentiary support, treating contested empirical questions as symmetrically valid perspectives." }, "FVS-018": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document maintains its broad scope on UBI throughout; it does not narrow from a wide question to a specific sub-question without acknowledgment." }, "FVS-019": { "exhibits": false, "reasoning": "The document is structured as an encyclopedia entry with discrete sections rather than a flowing narrative; it does not rely on narrative coherence to make its case." }, "FVS-020": { "exhibits": true, "reasoning": "The article implicitly operates from a liberal-democratic welfare-state frame (treating UBI as a policy proposal within existing market economies) without naming or examining that frame, making alternative framings\u2014e.g., post-capitalist or libertarian\u2014invisible as organizing perspectives." } } }, "call_meta": { "a01_altman_intelligence_age": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4727, "output_tokens": 994, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "a02_fomc_march_2026": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 3823, "output_tokens": 902, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b01_nvidia_investment": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 3984, "output_tokens": 1001, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b02_automation_policy": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 3997, "output_tokens": 996, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b03_social_media_adolescents": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4018, "output_tokens": 1200, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b04_llm_customer_support": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 3991, "output_tokens": 951, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b05_remote_work_productivity": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 3956, "output_tokens": 1057, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "b06_quantum_computing_outlook": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4008, "output_tokens": 1046, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "c01_wikipedia_semaglutide": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4873, "output_tokens": 950, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "c02_wikipedia_eu_ai_act": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4549, "output_tokens": 1015, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "c03_wikipedia_quantum_supremacy": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4251, "output_tokens": 1080, "stop_reason": "end_turn" }, "c04_wikipedia_ubi": { "model_requested": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_served": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "input_tokens": 4564, "output_tokens": 989, "stop_reason": "end_turn" } } }