Agent Mode AI publishes a public quarterly review of every claim it has made, with verdict before/after, named primary-source movement, and aggregate verdict-change rate across the corpus. The bulletin runs on a fixed quarterly cadence (end of Apr, Jul, Oct, Jan); the rhythm is the editorial discipline the niche has been missing.
Quarterly cadence — fixed dates, end of each calendar quarter. Each subsequent bulletin tests this claim against whether it actually shipped on schedule.
Correction log
- 29 Apr 2026Initial publication 29 Apr 2026 — the first Quarterly Claim Review Bulletin. The claim itself is recursive: it asserts that the bulletin will ship quarterly, and the next review (30 Jul 2026) tests whether the Q3 bulletin actually appeared. Status starts as 'up' because the claim is currently true (the Q2 bulletin shipped). The verdict at end of July 2026 will move to Holding, Partial (bulletin shipped but on a delayed cadence), or Not holding (no bulletin shipped). REVIEW: Peter — please verify claim text + cadence wording before removing rewriteInProgress flag.
/holding/AM-115/Embed this claimiframe + oEmbed
The card auto-updates when the claim's status, last-reviewed date, or correction log changes. Embedders never need to refresh — the card is rendered live from the canonical record.
About this register
The Reporting register tracks claims published from articles addressed to senior enterprise IT leaders — CIOs, IT directors, heads of platform. Claims are reviewed on a 30–90 day cadence; each review either reaffirms the claim, marks one substantive part as Partial, or marks it Not holding once the underlying evidence has been overtaken.
Recent corrections in Reporting
- AM-002 · Not holding · 06 May 2026
URL state changed. The /the-agentic-ai-revolution-real-world-success-stories-and-strategic-insights-from-2024-2025/ slug now serves a deliberately rewritten retrospective (claimId AM-130, "Agentic AI 2024-2025 retrospective", published 04 May 2026) against audited primary sources. The 28 Apr 2026 redirect to /retractions/ has been lifted to allow that. AM-002 the claim remains Not holding — the original $3.50/dollar + 70% failure-rate framing was withdrawn and is not restored. AM-130 is a separate claim with its own evidence chain. Readers arriving at /holding/AM-002 see the withdrawal here; the article link surfaces the new piece at the URL the original lived at, with this entry as the audit trail.
- AM-121 · Holding · 2 May 2026
Klarna walk-back primary-source upgrade — added Siemiatkowski verbatim quotes via Bloomberg-cited-by-Fortune (9 May 2025) and the Uber-style freelance hiring detail via Entrepreneur. Closes the highest-priority evidence gap from the source dossier.
- AM-114 · Partial · 29 Apr 2026
Initial publication 29 Apr 2026. Initial verdict 'Partial' — the four-layer model is observable from current 2026 tool categories and OpenTelemetry GenAI convergence, but the procurement-or-build cost bands are publication estimates and have not been tested across a representative sample of enterprise deployments. REVIEW: Peter — please verify (1) the OpenTelemetry GenAI stable-promotion date (13 Mar 2026) is consistent with what AM-110 cites; (2) the cost-band ranges in the §Share-thoughts template are defensible as our-estimate or need tightening; (3) Datadog AI Observability and New Relic AI Monitoring product names are current; (4) Arize Phoenix open-source/managed dual-form description is accurate; (5) the CNCF OpenTelemetry GenAI working-group framing matches the actual project structure before removing rewriteInProgress flag.
Reviews coming up in Reporting
- AM-003 · Holding · next +5d (19 May 2026)
GPT-5 Pro's tiered-subscription model forces enterprises to classify problems by computational difficulty — $200/month…
- AM-136 · Holding · next +21d (4 Jun 2026)
Across the 24-month window May 2024 to April 2026, every major foundation-model provider (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, AW…
- AM-020 · Holding · next +35d (18 Jun 2026)
The 40-60% TCO underestimate on enterprise agentic-AI deployments is not a cost-visibility failure — it is a cross-depa…