How should we preserve conflicting AI incident answers?
Preserve each answer with its date, engine, source links and review state before trying to reconcile the disagreement. The PHP2Shell study retained 148 eligible answers from 150 planned observations captured on 23 October 2026, with two exclusions. Keeping those bases distinct makes an incomplete record visible instead of allowing it to look like agreement or silence.
What we measured
Measured. The PHP2Shell method and retained records preserve the collection base needed for this archive example: 150 planned observations, 148 eligible answers and two exclusions on 23 October 2026. The method assessed answer text and cited sources against dated reference evidence, retaining review labels beside the observations. Its 23 potentially misleading labels concern answers, not demonstrated attacks or losses. Preserving an answer and its review state enables a later reader to inspect a disagreement; it does not establish that the record is a current technical verdict.
What this means for you
Reasoned. Give each retained observation a stable reference. Save the complete answer rather than only the sentence that supports your preferred conclusion. Record when it was captured, which source version was available and what the question asked at the level needed for a private review. Do not place sensitive incident details or personal context into a public correction.
Build the reconciliation beside the evidence. One row can hold the answer's claim, another field the primary-source passage, and another the reviewer decision: supported, contradicted or unresolved. An answer that could not be assessed needs its own state and reason. Removing that row would make the remaining answers appear more complete than the collection was.
When a primary source changes, preserve the earlier reference and add the new one. That lets you distinguish a stale answer from one that contradicted the evidence available at capture. A later source cannot silently become the historical basis for an earlier verdict.
Keep the publication decision separate too. A private archive may contain sensitive detail that does not belong on the public page. A public explanation can report the dated finding and limitation while retaining the underlying evidence for a responsible review.
- If you review answers: preserve contrary examples and excluded records, not just the strongest quote.
- If you publish a correction: identify the dated claim and source without exposing unnecessary incident detail.
- If you maintain the archive: add revisions with dates rather than overwriting the earlier record.
Also asked as
How should we preserve conflicting AI incident answers?
Related
- PHP2Shell's dated study
- The AI source standard
- Valid measurement records
- How timing changes evidence
Next step
Use the Free 10-question check (one engine). No email is needed; runs are limited per network and per day, and by the site's daily allowance. Retain the bounded check as an observation, not a replacement for the original archive.
After the evidence review identifies one page correction, Fix one answer, $490.
Our answer-study method, v1.1.
Prepared by the Broadcastwell team.
Page owner: Marcus Reed, AI Specialist. Corrections: hello@broadcastwell.com