Most AI coverage tells you what a study said. This one tells you how far the claim has traveled from what the study actually measured.
One email, one scored claim, no pitch. We never sell or share your address.
AI produces more unverified numbers per week than any other subject in business. A vendor benchmark becomes an industry statistic. A preprint becomes a headline. A single funnel in a working paper becomes a claim about the entire category. None of that is fraud. It is drift, and drift is what costs you money.
Every edition takes one AI claim that is currently being used to justify spending, traces it back to the primary source, and scores it out of 100. Higher means more distance between what the evidence supports and how the claim is being used.
The score is broken into five published components, so if you disagree, you can point at the specific component you think is wrong. That is the whole design. Arguing with a score is more useful than trusting one.
No. The verdict scale runs in both directions. Underrated is a real verdict and it gets used. Claims that hold up are marked as holding up. The target is the gap between evidence and usage, not the technology.
The ones that reach a budget meeting. Productivity multipliers, failure rates, job displacement figures, security benchmarks, energy and water consumption, adoption statistics. If a slide is using it to justify a decision, it qualifies.
Twice a week. Tuesday and Thursday at 1:00 PM Central. One scored claim per edition.
Tuesday and Thursday at 1:00 PM Central. Every call is dated and graded in public, including the ones we get wrong.
One email, one scored claim, no pitch. We never sell or share your address. Subscriber figure taken live from our mail provider and last checked July 26, 2026; most of it carried over from the two publications that merged into this one.