The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 34 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Day Before Cyrus Entered Babylon
Open accessAbstract
Horizon 2020(H2020): 682241
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Waerzeggers edits two new cuneiform tablets, BM 60916 and BM 101100, from Sippar during the two weeks between Sippar’s surrender and Cyrus’s entry into Babylon in 539 BCE. The texts show Sippar’s scribes quickly recognized Cyrus and, by 02-VIII, adopted the Assyrian-derived title “king of the lands” for him before he entered Babylon.
Key findings
- BM 60916 was written in Sippar one day before Cyrus entered Babylon (03-VIII), and BM 101100 was written on 20-VII; together they raise the known corpus of tablets drafted between Sippar’s surrender (14-VII) and Cyrus’s entry (03-VIII) from five to seven.
- Sippar’s Ebabbar scribes did not yet recognize Cyrus on 15-VII, but did by 19-VII (CT 57:717), the earliest evidence of Cyrus’s recognition as ruler anywhere in Babylonia; BM 101100 on 20-VII confirms this recognition.
- Uruk continued dating after Nabonidus at least until 17-VII, one day after Ugbaru secured Babylon, showing uneven local responses.
- The royal title for Cyrus shifted from “king of Babylon” to “king of the lands” from 02-VIII onward; BM 60916 confirms CT 57:697, and the title’s Assyrian origins (first used under Esarhaddon, continued under Ashurbanipal) suggest Cyrus was presented as heir to Assyrian world dominance.
Methods
- Philological edition and historical analysis of two previously unpublished cuneiform tablets, BM 60916 and BM 101100, with transliteration, translation, and comments.
- Contextualization against the Nabonidus Chronicle and contemporary archival texts; a table lists seven texts dated between 14-VII and 03-VIII with date, place, and royal title.
- Analysis of royal titulary, especially the switch to “king of the lands,” and its Assyrian background.
Limitations
- Stated: the reason for the title change remains unknown; how much longer Uruk remained loyal to Nabonidus or ignorant is unknown; no records from Babylon dated to the critical period are preserved; some readings/restorations are uncertain (e.g., BM 101100’s royal title, damaged month/day in Cyr 1, a problematic line in BM 101100).
- Stated: the historicity of the massacre at Opis can be doubted because reports of mass murder are rare and patterned in Babylonian chronicles.
- Evident: the corpus is very small (seven tablets) and geographically uneven, so conclusions about the “situation on the ground” rest on limited, damaged, and retrospectively interpreted evidence.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Sources not found · 13 Own interpretation · 8 Own result · 7 No basis given · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Not checked yet · 1 No full text of the sources · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“At the time of Tolini's writing, the switch of title from”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Tolini 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages from the introduction (pp. 123–124) discuss changes in Persian royal legitimacy in Babylonia, but do not identify a change from ‘king of Babylon’ to ‘king of the lands.’ Searches of our copy for the two titles, 02-VIII, and CT 57: 697 found no passage establishing the claimed first attestation. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites CT 57: 697
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“texts from the Egibi and Nūr-Sîn archives show that at least these elite families had taken refuge outside of the city during the entire period of military engagement between Nabonidus and Cyrus (Tolini 2014).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Tolini 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the section on the Persian conquest (p. 126), Tolini recounts the fighting and entry into Babylon using the Chronicle of Nabonidus. Our copy does not say that the Egibi or Nūr-Sîn archives show elite families taking refuge outside the city, or that they remained away throughout the military engagement; searches for both archive names and for families fleeing found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“As noted by Stefan Zawadzki (1995) and Gauthier Tolini (2014), the scribes of Ebabbar initially accorded Cyrus the title”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zawadzki 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Tolini 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion of Cyrus and the temples (pp. 124–126) describes his efforts to establish legitimacy and the priests’ relations with him, but does not say that Ebabbar’s scribes initially called him ‘king of Babylon.’ Searches for Ebabbar, the title, and Cyrus’s titulature in Sippar found no passage addressing that specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BM 60916 and BM 101100 now bring this total up to seven.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“On 15-VII, scribes at the Ebabbar temple of Sippar did not yet recognize Cyrus as royal authority, 7 despite the fact that their city is reported to have surrendered the previous day.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CT 56: 55
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Dating a tablet after a king indicates recognition of that king as royal authority.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with BM 101100, also edited here, this text can be added to a very small group of cuneiform tablets that informs us about the situation on the ground during Cyrus's attack on Babylonia in 539 BCE.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BM 60916 was written in Sippar one day before Cyrus entered Babylon as its new king.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“So far, five cuneiform tablets are known that were drafted in Babylonia during the two critical weeks between the surrender of Sippar (14-VII) and the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon (03-VIII).6”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Petschow 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From Babylon, no records dated to the critical period are preserved”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They did do so, however, by 19-VII as can be seen in CT 57: 717.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CT 57: 717
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Dating a tablet after a king indicates recognition of that king as royal authority.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“Cyr 1, dated to month Tashritu, is damaged so that its precise date is unknown.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cyr 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Month tašrītu, 20 th day, inaugural year of Cyrus, king of [Babylon?].”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The new text BM 101100 was written one day after CT 57: 717 and confirms Cyrus's recognition in Sippar.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CT 57: 717
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sippar, day 02, month arahsamna (VIII), inaugural year of Cyrus, king of the lands.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This latter title was subsequently maintained for the remainder of his inaugural year, before the co-regency with Cambyses in his first full year required further adaptations and the re-introduction of the element of”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The new text, BM 60916, was written on that very same day”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CT 57: 697
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both texts have been mentioned in print before but remained unpublished so far.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CT 57: 697 was written on 02-VIII, the day before Cyrus entered Babylon.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CT 57: 697
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is well-known that this timeline agrees well with archival evidence contemporary to the events. 1”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 29 source
- Not matchedcites Petschow 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Beaulieu 1989: 230-231
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the words of David Vanderhooft (2006: 352), there is no”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vanderhooft 2006: 352 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Cyrus's army then pushed on towards Babylon and, two days later, a contingent led by Ugbaru secured the city for two weeks, until, on the third day of Arahsamna, Cyrus joined his troops and entered Babylon with a message of peace.4”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nabonidus Chronicle
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this point, the conquest of Babylon had not yet been fully accomplished, as Cyrus had not yet joined Ugbaru's troops.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, not only Sippar's surrender but also the siege of Babylon appears to have been relevant for the scribes of Ebabbar in making the decision to date their records after Cyrus, instead of Nabonidus.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Dating a tablet after a king indicates recognition of that king as royal authority.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The practice continued under Ashurbanipal and became defunct once the Babylonian Empire emancipated itself from Assyrian rule.15”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Seux 1967: 315 n. 262
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites San Nicolò 1941: 23 n.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Berger 1973: 72-82
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the likely insecurity about Babylon's fate, the temple administration of Sippar continued its business as usual, producing three closely dated texts on 15, 19 and 20 Tashritu.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the text Cyr 10 reveals that the gate of Enlil sustained damage during the invasion (as argued by Tolini 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tolini 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The local custom was for a new king to adopt the title 'king of Babylon' immediately upon claiming power, without waiting for the first Akitu festival.
“The local custom was for a new king to adopt the title”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dating a tablet after a king indicates recognition of that king as royal authority.
“On 15-VII, scribes at the Ebabbar temple of Sippar did not yet recognize Cyrus as royal authority, 7 despite the fact that their city is reported to have surrendered the previous day.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The title 'king of the lands' had an explicit universalist ambition.
“The history of the title, its explicit universalist ambition, and its almost immediate application after the siege of Babylon, all suggest that Cyrus was seen (or made himself to be seen) as heir to Assyria's world dominance very early in his reign.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ King of the Lands
“Irving Finkel offers a summary of BM 101100 in his recent article on the Cyrus Cylinder (2013: 118)”
§ References
“Finkel, Irving J. 2013. The Cyrus Cylinder: The Babylonian Perspective. Pp. 4-34 in The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia's Proclamation from Ancient Babylon, ed. I. J. Finkel.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Text Corpus
“Perhaps it is no coincidence that this text is dated a day after Ugbaru had secured Babylon on behalf of Cyrus.”
§ The Text Corpus
“This happened, still according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, on the 14 th day of Tashritu.Cyrus's army then pushed on towards Babylon and, two days later, a contingent led by Ugbaru secured the city for two weeks”
Citations
Cites
Olmstead, A. T. (1948) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226826332.001.0001 · Cited by 557
Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia
Shayegan, M. R. (2011) · Cited by 183
Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon (556-539 BC)
Beaulieu, P. (1990) · Yale University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt2250wnt · Cited by 165
Jursa, M., Hackl, J., Janković, B., et al. (2010) · Cited by 161
Self-citationThe Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy
Kuhrt, A. (1983) · Journal for the Study of the Old Testament · doi:10.1177/030908928300802507 · Cited by 151
(1997) · Cited by 105
Facts, Propaganda, Or History? Shaping Political Memory In The Nabonidus Chronicle
Waerzeggers, C. (2010) · SBL Press eBooks · doi:10.15699/9780884140894-007 · Cited by 39
Self-citationBabylonian chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75
Goeseke, H., Parker, R. A., & Dubberstein, W. H. (1960) · Oriens · doi:10.2307/1580326 · Cited by 24
Catalogue of the Babylonian tablets in the British Museum
Figulla, H. H. (1961) · Academic Commons (Stony Brook University) · Cited by 22
Simcox, E. J. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511695148.015 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Jursa, Michael, and Klaus Wagensonner. 2014. The Estates of Šamaš on the Hābūr. Pp. 109- 130 in Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. M. Kozuh, et al. SAOC 68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
- Michalowski, Piotr. 2014. Biography of a Sentence: Assurbanipal, Nabonidus, and Cyrus. Pp. 203-210 in Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. M. Kozuh, et al. SAOC 68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
- B.C. -A.D. 75. Brown University Studies 19. Providence: Brown University Press.
- Redford, Douglas W. 1998. Quest for the Crown Jewel: The Centrality of Egypt in the Foreign Policy of Esarhaddon. PhD dissertation, Hebrew Union College.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silverman, J. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0302
Metadata
- Authors
- Waerzeggers, C.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Waerzeggers, Caroline
- Venue
- Individuals and Institutions in the Ancient Near East
- Publisher
- De Gruyter
- Published
- 2021-10-11
- Pages
- 79-88
- OpenAlex
- W3206159111
- Semantic Scholar
- f6afe4268b6f323894e29f68299de89bbdd281da
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- De Gruyter eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Near East History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Eurasian Exchange Networks
- Keywords
- Cyrus the Great, Sippar, cuneiform tablets, Uruk, royal titles, political rhetoric, Babylonian inscriptions
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-26, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-26 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
