CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision

Open access
Ağaoğlu, Merve, Erdil, Oya·2026·Behavioral Sciences
DOI 10.3390/bs16071191PMC PMC13403423
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The literature on antisocial bystander responses to vicarious mistreatment predominantly considers observer deviance as a retaliatory, emotion-based behavior and examines it through the lens of deontic justice. This perspective centers on the idea that observers are disturbed by abuse and act in favor of the victim with a desire to restore justice. However, recent research indicates that observers may also engage in deviance towards the victim, which makes the deonance theory insufficient for explaining different forms of bystander aggression. Therefore, to provide further insights into bystander aggression directed at the victim, we need to rely on an alternative perspective. Grounded in attribution theory, this work approaches observer deviance not as an emotional response but as a result of a cognitive process and proposes an attribution-driven model. We discuss the observer attribution process as an antecedent to different types of observer deviance that emerge following vicarious abusive supervision. Drawing on research on observers’ deviant reactions following vicarious abusive supervision, we conceptualize observers’ behaviors into two main categories (i.e., reciprocity-based and victim-based) and identify two main attribution types (i.e., responsibility and justification) that observers can make. Consequently, we develop a conceptual model proposing the mediating effects of observer attributions. Additionally, we discuss the possible moderating effects of power distance— at both the individual and the organizational levels—that may influence observer evaluations of coworker abuse. Our model addresses the role of observers’ evaluations of vicarious mistreatment, offers several empirically testable research propositions, and enhances our understanding of third-party deviance.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This conceptual paper argues that observers' deviant responses to vicarious abusive supervision are better explained by a cognitive attribution process than by emotion-driven deontic justice. It proposes a model in which responsibility attributions drive reciprocity-based deviance (toward supervisor or organization) and justification attributions drive victim-based deviance, moderated by individual and organizational power distance.

Key findings

  • The authors propose two independent attribution dimensions: responsibility (blame) and justification (perceiving abuse as reasonable), and argue deontic justice cannot explain observer deviance directed at the victim.
  • Proposition 1: Holding justification attribution constant, responsibility attributions for abusive supervision are positively associated with frequency and severity of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors.
  • Proposition 2: Holding justification attribution constant, responsibility attributions are positively associated with frequency and severity of organization-directed deviant behaviors.
  • Proposition 3: Holding responsibility attribution constant, justification attributions are positively associated with frequency and severity of victim-directed deviant behaviors.
  • Proposition 4: Personal power distance beliefs moderate the vicarious abusive supervision–attribution link, weakening the responsibility-attribution relationship and strengthening the justification-attribution relationship.
  • Proposition 5: Higher organizational power distance norms strengthen the positive relationship between responsibility attributions and organization-directed deviance.
  • Proposition 6: Within a higher organizational power distance context, the positive relationship between responsibility attributions and organization-directed deviance should be stronger for observers with lower power distance beliefs.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual/theoretical paper developing an attribution-driven model with six testable propositions; no empirical data collected or analyzed.
  • Approach: narrative literature review integrating attribution theory (e.g., Weiner, 1979, 1985; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Bowling & Beehr, 2006) with research on vicarious abusive supervision and bystander deviance.
  • Model elements: two attribution types (responsibility, justification), two deviance categories (reciprocity-based, victim-based), and power distance as both a dispositional (individual) and contextual (organizational) moderator.

Limitations

  • Stated: empirical evidence is needed to support the proposed model; no validated scale exists specifically for justification attributions regarding supervisor abuse, so one must first be developed (with discriminant validity from moral disengagement).
  • Stated: the model focuses exclusively on abusive supervision; broader models could include other negative managerial behaviors (bullying, mobbing, toxic leadership) and other antisocial observer behaviors, and research on bystander aggression toward victims is limited.
  • Evident from the text: as a conceptual paper, all relationships are proposed rather than tested, and the propositions rest on extrapolation from victim-focused attribution findings and a small set of observer studies.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bs16071191

Cites

78 of 79 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 79 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    Observer attributions are a predictor of third-party deviance.

    “Following a similar approach, we argue that observer attributions are a predictor of third-party deviance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bowling & Michel, 2011 source
    • cites Shoss et al., 2013 source

      The General Discussion (page unavailable) links employees’ blame of the organization to their own counterproductive behavior, but says the study did not directly ask employees about blame attributions. It does not establish that observers’ attributions predict third-party deviance; its findings concern employees who experienced abusive supervision and their organization-directed behavior. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Observers of mistreatment can also develop destructive behaviors directed at the victim.

    “However, some studies’ results indicate that observers of mistreatment can also develop destructive behaviors directed at the victim (e.g., Xu et al., 2020; Bai et al., 2022; P. Liu et al., 2022; Hill et al., 2025)”
    • Also stated in: § 2.1. Observed Abusive Supervision and Third-Party Deviant Behavior · hedged
      “However, some studies (e.g., Xu et al., 2020; Bai et al., 2022; Hill et al., 2025) interestingly show that victims may also be exposed to harm and mistreatment by observers after being abused”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Xu et al., 2020

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

    • cites Bai et al., 2022 source

      The passages available from our copy are bibliographic material: the title mentions abusive supervisors and peer mistreatment, and the keywords list peer harassment and ostracism (Abstract and bibliographic entry; no page given). Searches for observers or bystanders mistreating the victim returned no passage stating that finding, so the title and keywords alone cannot verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites P. Liu et al., 2022 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Observers may not always tend to blame the perpetrator.

    “observers may not always tend to blame the perpetrator.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiori et al., 2016 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    When holding justification attribution constant, observers' responsibility attributions for abusive supervision will be positively associated with the frequency and severity of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors.

    “When holding justification attribution constant, observers’ responsibility attributions for abusive supervision will be positively associated with the frequency and severity of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen & Liu, 2019 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Responsibility attribution and justification attribution represent two independent dimensions of the observer employee’s evaluative judgments.
  • Premisecitation

    Employees with lower power distance beliefs are more open to challenging organizational practices.

    “employees with lower power distance beliefs are more open to challenging organizational practices (Carl et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carl et al., 2004

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

  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The deontic justice perspective is insufficient as a theoretical explanation of observer aggression, particularly because it fails to explain antisocial behaviors directed at the victim.

    “That is, while the deontic justice approach explains observers’ aggression toward agents who are perceived as distorting justice, it fails to explain the antisocial behaviors directed at the victim.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Xu et al., 2020

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

    • cites Bai et al., 2022 source

      The supplied Abstract and bibliographic passages identify peer mistreatment and social learning theory but do not discuss deontic justice or its limits. Searches for deontic justice, observer aggression, and antisocial behavior directed at victims found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites P. Liu et al., 2022 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Attribution of blame dimensions of both studies has more appropriate items to adapt to our construct.

    “attribution of blame dimensions of both studies has more appropriate items to adapt to our construct”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bandura et al., 1996 source
    • cites Moore et al., 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    An observer's mistreatment of a victim may be intended as a gesture to please their superior.

    “Bai et al. (2022) emphasized that an observer’s mistreatment of a victim may be intended as a gesture to please their superior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bai et al., 2022 source

      The available copy identifies the article and its topics in the title and keyword list, but provides no passage about an observer mistreating a victim to please a superior. Searches for that motive and for related terms such as ingratiation and supervisor approval found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.68)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    These items do not reflect any attempts to provide an employee's justification of managerial mistreatment in a workplace context.

    “these items do not reflect any attempts to provide an employee’s justification of managerial mistreatment in a workplace context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bandura et al., 1996 source
    • cites Moore et al., 2012 source

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

    Premisereasoning

    Moore et al.'s (2012) moral justification dimension item does not reflect our construct.

    “Moore et al.’s (2012) moral justification dimension item in the Propensity to Morally Disengage Scale does not reflect our construct”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moore et al., 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Third-party deviance is a consequence of a cognitive process (i.e., attribution process), distinguishing it from an emotionally driven deontic response.

    “In line with these arguments, we argue that third-party deviance is a consequence of a cognitive process (i.e., attribution process), distinguishing it from an emotionally driven deontic response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The organization can be perceived as a facilitator of abuse and can be seen as one of the parties responsible for it.

    “Therefore, the organization can be perceived as a facilitator of abuse and can be seen as one of the parties responsible for it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In low power distance organizations, equality rather than hierarchical position is at the forefront.

    “In low power distance organizations, equality rather than hierarchical position is at the forefront”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites T. N. Ma et al., 2025

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Observers can engage in antisocial behaviors not only against the perpetrator but also against the organization itself.

    “Moreover, Dhanani and LaPalme (2019) underline that observers can engage in antisocial behaviors not only against the perpetrator but also against the organization itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In organizations where power is not equally distributed, there are strict rules such as loyalty to the superior.

    “and there are strict rules such as loyalty to the superior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carl et al., 2004

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Organizational factors may affect an employee's evaluation of workplace harassment, which may lead to finding the organization partially or directly guilty and resulting in organizational deviance.

    “organizational factors may affect an employee’s evaluation of workplace harassment, which may lead to finding the organization partially or directly guilty and resulting in organizational deviance (Bowling & Beehr, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowling & Beehr, 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Employees who had lower power distance beliefs perceived more interactional injustice about abusive supervision, and because of that, they engaged in more deviant behaviors than those who had higher levels of power distance.

    “W. Wang et al. (2012) found that employees who had lower power distance beliefs perceived more interactional injustice about abusive supervision, and because of that, they engaged in more deviant behaviors than those who had higher levels of power distance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W. Wang et al., 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vicarious mistreatment increases overall levels of negative behavior, which could also involve behavior towards the victim that cannot be explained via a deontic perspective.

    “vicarious mistreatment increases overall levels of negative behavior, which could also involve behavior (e.g., towards the victim) that cannot be explained via a deontic perspective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There are studies that use scales to measure blame attributions regarding abusive supervision, but there is no validated scale that specifically addresses justifications when assessing supervisor abuse.

    “While there are studies (e.g., Bowling & Michel, 2011; Breaux et al., 2010) that use scales to measure blame attributions regarding abusive supervision, to the best of our knowledge, there is no validated scale that specifically addresses justifications when assessing supervisor abuse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bowling & Michel, 2011 source
    • cites Breaux et al., 2010 source

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Justification attributions reflect efforts to legitimate the moral violation.

    “justification attributions reflect efforts to legitimate the moral violation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Bandura et al.'s (1996) moral justification dimension involves justifying a person's engagement in immoral actions in order to serve a morally better cause.

    “Bandura et al.’s (1996) Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Scale for moral justification dimension, involves justifying a person’s engagement in immoral actions in order to serve a morally better cause”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bandura et al., 1996 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Personal characteristics were examined as antecedents of attributions, but personal values were neglected.

    “personal characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness) were examined as antecedents of attributions (see Bowling & Beehr, 2006), personal values (e.g., power distance beliefs) were neglected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowling & Beehr, 2006 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The observer is concerned by the action and, in accordance with the norm of reciprocity, may feel the need to respond.

    “The observer is concerned by the action and, in accordance with the norm of reciprocity, may feel the need to respond.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Collective people may make stronger attributions of blame or be more likely to engage in reciprocity-based reactions.

    “This may result in them making stronger attributions of blame or being more likely to engage in reciprocity-based reactions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Responsibility attributions can be seen as a process to blame the perpetrator or the organization.

    “responsibility attributions can be seen as a process to blame the perpetrator or the organization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The created organizational culture or human research practices can be seen as reasons to attribute the organization.

    “Bowling and Beehr (2006) state that the created organizational culture or human research practices can be seen as reasons to attribute the organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowling & Beehr, 2006 source

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Not supporting the victim may be understandable due to a fear of becoming the next one.

    “Not supporting the victim may be understandable due to a fear of becoming the next one.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yu et al., 2022

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

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

    Premisecitation

    Emotions may be the result of subjective evaluations of events.

    “emotions may be the result of subjective evaluations of events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lazarus, 1991 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Attribution theory can be an important tool due to its explanatory power.

    “attribution theory can be an important tool for us due to its explanatory power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Martinko et al., 2011 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Cognition and affect may be in interaction.

    “these two personal variables may be in interaction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Weiner et al., 1988 source
    • cites Schwarz & Clore, 1983 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Thoughts about the victim deserving it can play an important role in evaluating an immoral event and may result in justifying or accepting the abuse.

    “Such thoughts can play an important role in evaluating an immoral event and may result in justifying or accepting the abuse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Understanding the justification-and even imitating-abuse can be seen as prior knowledge on the emergence process of future abusers.

    “understanding the justification—and even imitating—abuse can be seen as prior knowledge on the emergence process of future abusers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The attribution of responsibility is based on the tendency to view the act as unwanted or morally false.

    “the attribution of responsibility is based on the tendency to view the act as unwanted or morally false.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jones & Davis, 1965 source
    • cites Malle et al., 2014 source
    • cites Weiner, 1979 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A coworker's victimizing of the victim may lead other coworkers to mistreat the victim as well, and turn this employee into a kind of organizational target.

    “A coworker’s victimizing of the victim may lead other coworkers to mistreat the victim as well, and turn this employee into a kind of organizational target.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Justification attributions are an attempt to justify the event, absolve the target's responsibility, and distance the act from intentionality by various explanations.

    “it is more of an attempt to justify the event, absolve the target’s responsibility, and distance the act from intentionality by various explanations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Kelley and Michela (1980) emphasized the importance of analyzing the context in which the attribution took place.

    “Kelley and Michela (1980) emphasized the importance of analyzing the context in which the attribution took place.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kelley & Michela, 1980 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Collective people give greater importance to group values and may tend to see their peers as a group member.

    “collective people give greater importance to group values (Peng et al., 2001) and may tend to see their peers as a group member.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Peng et al., 2001

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Individuals with high power distances may respect their authority figures, and rarely question their actions.

    “Individuals with high power distances may respect their authority figures, and rarely question their actions (Carl et al., 2004)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carl et al., 2004

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    If observers can engage in victim-directed deviance, they can certainly direct it to another coworker as well.

    “If observers can engage in victim-directed deviance, they can certainly direct it to another coworker as well.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Responsibility attribution and justification attribution represent two independent dimensions of the observer employee’s evaluative judgments.

    “Before introducing these two concepts, it should be noted that responsibility attribution and justification attribution, discussed in detail below, represent two independent dimensions of the observer employee’s evaluative judgments.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Attributions are event-level cognitions.

    “To avoid confusion at the level of analysis1, we clarify that, in this work, attributions are discussed as event-level cognitions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the workplace, superior-subordinate relationships are closely linked to organizational norms regarding the distribution of power.

    “In the workplace, superior-subordinate relationships are closely linked to organizational norms regarding the distribution of power.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Observers’ aggression towards the victim is a relatively new area of research, and studies on this topic are limited.

    “as the observers’ aggression towards the victim is a relatively new area of research, studies on this topic are also limited.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Bystander attitudes are a key factor in whether negative managerial behavior persists or ceases.

    “Bystander attitudes are a key factor in whether negative managerial behavior persists or ceases.”
5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Borkowski, N. (2009). Chapter 7. Attribution theory and motivation. Organizational behavior, theory and design in healthcare, Jones and Martlett.
  2. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill.
  3. Lunenburg, 2012, Power and leadership: An influence process, International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15, 1
  4. Matsumoto, D. (2001). Culture and human inference: Perspectives from three traditions. The handbook of culture and psychology, Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Ağaoğlu, M., & Erdil, O.
Affiliations
Gebze Technical University (TR)
Corresponding author
Ağaoğlu, Merve
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2026-07-15
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
1191
ISSN
2076-328X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/bs16071191
PMC
PMC13403423
OpenAlex
W7168376242
Semantic Scholar
1442fb084748caa6f6b29fe6c87a23f5a67eb0a1
Cited by
0
References
79
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
abusive supervision, attribution theory, justification, attribution of responsibility, reciprocity, power distance

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.

Cited sources are checked by 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