CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 171Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeception detection and forensic psychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Suspicion and Dispositional Inference

Open access
Hilton, James L., Fein, Steven, Miller, Dale T.·1993·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167293195003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The role of suspicion in the dispositional inference process is examined. Perceivers who are led to become suspicious of the motives underlying a target's behavior appear to engage in more active and thoughtful attributional analyses than nonsuspicious perceivers. Suspicious perceivers resist drawing inferences from a target's behavior that reflect the correspondence bias (or fundamental attribution error), and they consciously deliberate about questions of plausible causes and categorizations of the target's behavior They are, however, quite willing to make strong correspondent inferences about the target if they learn additional contextual information that renders alternative explanations for the target's behavior less plausible. Implications of these findings for current multiple-stage models of the dispositional inference process are discussed, and the need for these and other models to give more consideration to the social nature of social perception is asserted.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Suspicion—questioning whether a target’s behavior reflects genuine motives or ulterior ones—leads perceivers to suspend dispositional inferences and resist the correspondence bias. Suspicious perceivers remain willing to make strong correspondent inferences when later contextual information disambiguates the target’s behavior, suggesting multiple-stage models underweight the social and motivational nature of social perception.

Key findings

  • In Fein, Hilton, and Miller’s (1990) Studies 1 and 2, subjects in no-choice conditions inferred that an essay author’s true attitude matched the position argued, whereas subjects in ulterior-motives conditions drew no person inferences from the speech.
  • Suspicion is not mere conservatism: suspicious subjects wrote significantly more open-ended explanations and, in Fein (1991, Studies 1 and 2), were significantly more likely to report attribution-relevant thoughts than nonsuspicious subjects.
  • Suspicious perceivers use behavior selectively: in Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1989), subjects would not infer whether a suitor loved a wealthy widow or was after her money, but they did infer that he strongly wanted to marry her.
  • When later information disambiguates behavior, suspicious perceivers make strong correspondent inferences: Fein et al. (1990, Study 3) and Fein et al. (1989) found that additional sincerity or honesty/greed cues led to correspondent inferences about attitude, love, or greed.
  • Suspicion can produce cynicism toward expectancy-disconfirming behavior: in Fein (1991, Studies 6 and 7), subjects rated a student’s cultural interests more negatively and an ex-convict less trustworthy when the target was aware of the negative expectancy; in Study 8, they revised expectations for hard-to-fake analytical performance but not for interpersonal style.

Methods

  • Design: theoretical and conceptual review article, not a new empirical study; it integrates prior experiments on suspicion and dispositional inference.
  • Data or sample: reviewed experiments use assigned-essay, courtship-of-wealthy-widow, fellowship-interview, and ex-convict job-candidate paradigms; no sample sizes or statistical values are reported in the provided text.
  • Main analysis: narrative synthesis and critique of multiple-stage dispositional inference models, including anchor-and-adjustment accounts and Trope’s model, with a proposed distinction between diagnostic and calibrative discounting.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a formal limitations section. It states that current multiple-stage models do not clearly account for suspicion and calls for models that better recognize the social nature of social perception.
  • Evident from the text: the argument relies on prior studies, including an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Fein, 1991) and a conference paper (Fein, Hilton, & Miller, 1989), and reports no new data or numeric effect sizes.
  • Evident from the text: as a theoretical review, its causal claims depend on the reviewed experiments rather than on new manipulations reported here.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167293195003

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation
    § Suspicion and Dispositional Inference · p. 2

    Thibaut and Riecken (1955) found that a helper was liked less when he was of lower status than the recipient.

    “Thibaut and Riecken (1955) manipulated the relative status of the helper and the recipient and found that the helper was liked less when he was of lower status than the recipient.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thibaut and Riecken (1955) source
  • Findingcitation
    § Suspicion and Dispositional Inference · p. 2

    Pruitt (1968) found that the person who received help was less grateful when the help represented a relatively small proportion of the helper's resources.

    “Pruitt (1968) manipulated the resources available to the helper and found that the person who received help was less grateful when the help represented a relatively small proportion of the helper's resources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pruitt (1968) source
  • Findingcitation
    § CHARACTERIZING THE STATE OF SUSPICION · p. 5

    Fein et al. (1990, Study 3) found that subjects who read additional information did tend to make strong correspondent inferences about the target's attitude.

    “the subjects who read this information did tend to make strong correspondent inferences about his attitude.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fein et al. (1990, Study 3)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation
    § SUSPICION: AN ANTIDOTE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 4

    Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990) found that subjects in no-choice conditions saw the target's behavior as more normative than subjects in ulterior motives conditions.

    “subjects in the no-choice conditions saw the target's behavior as more normative (expected) than subjects in the ulterior motives conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation
    § SUSPICION AND THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 3

    Jones, Davis, and Gergen (1961) found that when actors' self-descriptions were consistent with the job description, subjects' ratings did not differ from neutral ratings.

    “However, when the selfdescriptions were consistent with the job description, and therefore possibly given in order to get the job, subjects'ratings did not differ from neutral ratings”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jones, Davis, and Gergen's (1961) source
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § CHARACTERIZING THE STATE OF SUSPICION · p. 5

    Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1989) found that subjects were unwilling to infer either that the man was truly in love with the woman or that he was simply after her money.

    “the subjects were unwilling to infer either that the man was truly in love with the woman or that he was simply after her money.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1989)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § CHARACTERIZING THE STATE OF SUSPICION · p. 4

    Fein (1991, Study 1) found that suspicious subjects' responses indicated they did not tend to conclude that the target was influenced by ulterior motives but rather that the target may have been influenced by ulterior motives.

    “Their responses indicated that these subjects did not tend to conclude that the target was influenced by ulterior motives but, rather, that the target may have been influenced by ulterior motives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fein (1991, Study 1)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § SUSPICION: AN ANTIDOTE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 4

    Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990) found that subjects in ulterior motives conditions recognized the possibility that the author's behavior may have been influenced by ulterior motives and perceived that they could not make a confident inference about his true attitude.

    “their open-ended responses indicated that these subjects merely recognized the possibility that his behavior may have been influenced by ulterior motives and perceived that they therefore could not make a confident inference about his true attitude.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Subjects in our studies who have been induced to become suspicious tend to take situational factors into sufficient account, become actively concerned with questions of causality, distinguish between information that can and cannot be explained by particular causal explanations, and use subtle cues that can help them determine which among several dispositional inferences is most appropriate.

    “Subjects in our studies who have been induced to become suspicious tend to take situational factors into sufficient account, to become actively concerned with questions of causality, to distinguish between information that can and cannot be explained by particular causal explanations, and to use subtle cues that can help them determine which among several dispositional inferences is most appropr”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 3

    In the typical assigned-essay paradigm, subjects may wonder whether the author really holds the expressed attitude, but it is unlikely that they question why the attitude was expressed.

    “Subjects in the typical assigned-essay paradigm may wonder whether the author really holds the expressed attitude, but it is unlikely that they question why the attitude was expressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND ACCURACY · p. 6

    The possibility that an ulterior motive might exist makes perceivers cynical and leads them to be conservative in their inferences.

    “The latter possibility makes them cynical and leads them to be conservative in their inferences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 3

    Subjects should quickly identify the author's behavior and initially infer that the author holds an attitude corresponding to the essay, then correct this inference in light of situational constraint information.

    “subjects should very quickly identify the author's behavior and initially infer that the author holds an attitude that corresponds to the attitude expressed in the essay. Then they should begin to correct this inference in light of the information about situational constraint.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § SUSPICION AND EXPECTANCYDISCONFIRMATION · p. 7

    Subjects in the second study were assigned randomly to one of three conditions.

    “Subjects were assigned randomly to one of three conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND EXPECTANCYDISCONFIRMATION · p. 6

    When a perceiver assumes that a target is aware of a stereotype, this awareness leads to suspicion, which in turn leads to rejection of expectancy-disconfirming behavior.

    “Notice that what separates the two examples is that the perceiver in the latter scenario assumes that the target is aware of the stereotype. This awareness leads to suspicion, which, in turn, leads to a rejection of the expectancy-disconfirming behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND THE CORRESPONDENCE BIAS · p. 3

    Until perceivers resolve ambiguity about whether the motives underlying the behavior reflect the author's true attitude, the desire to ingratiate, or some combination, they should suspend their judgments and thereby avoid the correspondence bias.

    “Until the perceivers are able to resolve this ambiguity and determine whether the motives underlying the behavior reflect the author's true attitude, the desire to ingratiate, or some combination of these factors, they should suspend their judgments and thereby avoid the correspondence bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICION AND ACCURACY · p. 6

    The wealth of the woman presents a very plausible, though not necessarily the most probable, alternative explanation for the suitor's behavior, and this plausibility is sufficient to lead the perceiver to suspend judgment.

    “the wealth of the woman presents a very plausible, though not necessarily the most probable, alternative explanation for the behavior, and this plausibility is sufficient to lead the perceiver to suspend judgment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § SUSPICION AND EXPECTANCYDISCONFIRMATION · p. 7

    It is much less plausible that someone who is not athletic but is motivated to appear to be a good athlete could behave in a very athletic fashion for any length of time than that someone motivated to appear culturally literate could act culturally literate during a brief interaction.

    “Whereas virtually anyone who is motivated to deceive another by appearing to be culturally literate, for example, could act in a culturally literate manner during a brief interaction (if given some time to prepare), it is much less plausible that someone who is not athletic but is motivated to appear to be a good athlete could behave in a very athletic fashion for any length of time”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Reeder & Brewer, 1979 source
    • cites Reeder & Fulks, 1980 source
    • cites Reeder et al., 1977 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CHARACTERIZING THE STATE OF SUSPICION · p. 5

    Suspicious subjects do not behave as if they had gained no information from the target's behavior; they behave as if they had received important information whose meaning remains ambiguous, and they suspend judgments only until the meaning of the behavior can be made clear.

    “subjects who are suspicious do not behave as if they had gained no information from the target's behavior. Instead, they behave as if they had received important information whose meaning remains ambiguous, and they suspend their judgments only until the meaning of the behavior can be made clear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND THOUGHTFUL PERCEIVERS · p. 10

    According to our analysis, suspicion results in midpoint ratings because the subjects suspend their judgments, not because they conclude that the target has a moderate disposition.

    “According to our analysis, however, suspicion results in midpoint ratings because the subjects suspend their judgments, not because they conclude that the target has a moderate disposition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Current models do not specify how the correction stage would lead to a consideration of a variety of dispositions.

    “Current models do not specify how the correction stage would lead to a consideration of a variety of dispositions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Suspicious perceivers consciously consider competing identifications, and they seek additional cues that can reduce the ambiguity created by this competition.

    “Although it is doubtful that they can appreciate completely the role of contextual information in their construal of the target's behavior, suspicious perceivers consciously consider competing identifications, and they seek additional cues that can reduce the ambiguity created by this competition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 9

    Controlled processing and considerations of situational factors would be evident at both the early anchoring stage(s) and the later adjustment stage.

    “Thus it would appear that controlled processing and considerations of situational factors would be evident at both the early anchoring stage(s) and the later adjustment stage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Suspicious perceivers entertain multiple inferences, and these inferences sometimes implicate very different dispositions or characterizations (e.g., greed vs. love).

    “Rather, suspicious perceivers entertain multiple inferences, and these inferences sometimes implicate very different dispositions or characterizations (e.g., greed vs. love).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 9

    Gilbert et al. (1992) found that when perceivers are presented with perceptually obscured behavioral stimuli concerning a target person, the cognitive effort they must devote to deciphering the proper categorization reduces their ability to engage in the cognitively effortful process of correction, thereby increasing the likelihood of succumbing to the correspondence bias.

    “Gilbert, McNulty, Giuliano, and Benson (1992), for example, have found that when perceivers are presented with perceptually obscured behavioral stimuli concerning a target person, the cognitive effort they must devote to deciphering the proper categorization reduces their ability to engage in the cognitively effortful process of correction, thereby increasing the likelihood of succumbing to the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gilbert, McNulty, Giuliano, and Benson (1992) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Suspicion involves active, deliberative attributional thinking concerning the multiple and potentially rival explanations for a target's behavior.

    “Because suspicion involves active, deliberative attributional thinking concerning the multiple and potentially rival explanations for a target's behavior”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND THOUGHTFUL PERCEIVERS · p. 10

    The discounting that occurs in the case of no-choice conditions may involve more moderate inferences, but the discounting that occurs in the case of ulterior motivation seems to reflect suspended judgment rather than moderate inferences.

    “The discounting that occurs in the case of no-choice conditions may involve more moderate inferences, but the discounting that occurs in the case of ulterior motivation seems to reflect suspended judgment rather than moderate inferences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 8

    Many current multiple-stage models can account well for the strong tendency of the typical perceiver to draw inappropriately correspondent inferences, but they do not offer as clear an account for the role of suspicion in the dispositional inference process.

    “Although many of these models can account well for the strong tendency of the typical perceiver to draw inappropriately correspondent inferences, they do not offer as clear an account for the role of suspicion in the dispositional inference process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND THOUGHTFUL PERCEIVERS · p. 11

    Although suspicion may be especially likely to trigger thoughtful diagnostic discounting because people may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a sucker in the face of an actor influenced by ulterior motives, diagnostic discounting should occur whenever the perceiver is uncertain which trait or motive is implicated in a behavior.

    “Although suspicion may be especially likely to trigger thoughtful diagnostic discounting because people may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: People may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a sucker in the face of an actor influenced by ulterior motives.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND COGNITIVE MISERS · p. 9

    In order to become suspicious in the first place, the perceiver must recognize the situational factors that suggest that ulterior motives may offer a plausible explanation for the target's behavior.

    “After all, in order to become suspicious in the first place, the perceiver must recognize the situational factors that suggest that ulterior motives may offer a plausible explanation for the target's behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION · p. 11

    When perceiving nonsocial behavior, perceivers need not concern themselves with the motives underlying the behavior; in perceiving people, the plausibility of hidden, illicit motives is often great.

    “When perceiving nonsocial behavior, perceivers need not concern themselves with the motives underlying the behavior. In perceiving people, however, the plausibility of hidden, illicit motives is often great.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND THOUGHTFUL PERCEIVERS · p. 10

    The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic inducements makes sense as long as the corresponding disposition has already been identified.

    “The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic inducements makes sense as long as the corresponding disposition has already been identified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § SUSPICIOUS PERCEIVERS AND THOUGHTFUL PERCEIVERS · p. 11

    One implication of this analysis may be that although the process may at times be fairly cyclical, perceivers often must first diagnose which trait or motives correspond to the behavior before they can complete their adjustment for intrinsic and extrinsic inducements.

    “It is important to note, however, that one implication of this analysis may be that although the process may at times be fairly cyclical, perceivers often must first diagnose which trait or motives correspond to the behavior before they can complete their adjustment for intrinsic and extrinsic inducements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
27 of 27

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Stereotypes are often both public and negative.

    “because stereotypes are often both public and negative”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The negative aspects of stereotypes are often extremely difficult to disconfirm.

    “It is clear that the negative aspects of stereotypes are often extremely difficult to disconfirm.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a sucker in the face of an actor influenced by ulterior motives.

    “Although suspicion may be especially likely to trigger thoughtful diagnostic discounting because people may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perceivers do not make correspondent trait attributions when they become suspicious of the motives underlying the actor's behavior.

    “However, perceivers do not make these correspondent trait attributions when they become suspicious of the motives underlying the actor's behavior.”

    From The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations (2006) · cites this paper as Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993

    The paper reports that suspicious perceivers initially refrain from making correspondent inferences when an actor’s motives are ambiguous (Characterizing the State of Suspicion, pp. 4–5). The claim is too absolute: the same section says they may make correspondent inferences after additional information clarifies the behavior. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Fein, S. (1991). The suspicious mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
  2. Gilbert, D. T., 1989, Unintended thought, 189
  3. Hilton, J. L., 1990, Review International de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 519

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hilton, J. L., Fein, S., & Miller, D. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Williams College (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1993-10
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
501-512
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167293195003
OpenAlex
W2079398527
Semantic Scholar
399a99633ce8421df81198b2f98dd1b7bf6af833
Cited by
171
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
suspicion, dispositional inference, fundamental attribution error, correspondence bias, attributional analysis, social perception, contextual information, causal explanation, categorization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review