Archive · submit

Spot a claim worth archiving?

Every week, vendors, analysts, and regulators make specific, testable claims about enterprise agentic AI. Most are never tested again. If you've seen one that deserves review, surface it here.

What passes the significance bar

The claim is specific and testable — a named number, a dated threshold, a quantified prediction.
The source is public — press release, earnings call, keynote, paper, regulator statement. NDA-bound vendor briefings are not archiveable.
The claim is material — procurement-, board-, or policy-relevant at enterprise scale.
A 12–18 month review window is meaningful — either the claim's truth will be clearer by then, or its absence of follow-up is itself the signal.

Full triage methodology at /archive/method/. Submissions that don't pass get a brief reply explaining why.

Source type

Source name

Source URL

Link to the original public source (press release, earnings transcript, paper, regulator statement). A Wayback snapshot will be captured automatically when the claim is logged.

Source date (optional)

When the claim was stated. If it's undated, leave empty — the triage pass will estimate from the source page.

Claim text *

Quantitative claims (percentages, dollar amounts, time windows) are the strongest candidates. "AI will change everything" is not archiveable; "29 000 deals in Q4 FY26" is.

Why it matters (optional)

Your email (optional)

Only used to acknowledge the submission and reply with triage outcome. Not added to the newsletter. Leave blank to submit anonymously.

Disagree with an existing claim's verdict? File a correction instead — corrections move existing records; submissions open new ones.