{"id":"a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e","title":"Anthropic authors report that analysts often followed AI agents’ assigned preferences","argument":"Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren and Alex Tamkin report a study of professional analysts using Claude Code for a statistical analysis. The task involved choices with more than one reasonable answer, including how to measure farm productivity and compare farms. Among 50 analysts who used the agent, choices matched its deliberately assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time. The authors also report that analysts sometimes repeated the agent’s arguments afterward without crediting it, and often still described the recommendation as their own. The study suggests a possible challenge for work where experts must make judgment calls: an agent may shape decisions even when the human reviewer believes their judgment is independent. The authors caution that they strengthened the agent’s preferences to measure their effect, and that the study used one task, one field and one model. They also report that analysts using the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors, but the groups were not comparable enough to attribute those differences to AI use. How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery","work-and-agency","institutions-and-trust"],"domain":"work","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The authors say the study used one task in one field, with one model, and the analysts were experts in causal inference but new to farming. The agent’s preferences were deliberately strengthened; the authors say their effect in real-world work depends on factors including experts’ own views and model behavior. The group that worked without AI was small and less experienced, so the reported difference in errors and task time cannot establish that using AI caused the difference. The study measured average effects across analysts and did not record each participant’s own view before the agent expressed its lean.","speaker":{"name":"Anthropic","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls","publisher":"Anthropic","format":"Article","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","publishedAt":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","dateBasis":"Date stated by the publisher."},"evidence":[{"text":"In the study, the choices of analysts who used the agent matched its assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time.","excerpt":"Across all four combined, the result was 86%.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that analysts repeated an agent’s argument in at least one answer in 77% of cases, while 15% credited the agent anywhere.","excerpt":"77% repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, sometimes word for word, and only 15% credited the agent anywhere.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors caution that the study’s deliberately strengthened agent preferences limit how directly its results apply to real-world work.","excerpt":"We deliberately strengthened the agents’ lean. Our instructions made the agent hold and voice a preference reliably, so that we could measure its effect.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Analysts who used the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors in this task, but the study does not establish that AI use caused the difference.","excerpt":"The two groups were not directly comparable, so we can’t be sure whether the different outcomes were caused by the decision to use or not use AI.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"found","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","items":[{"type":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","attribution":"Anthropic","basis":"publisher-embed","availability":"verified","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper folder and a blue-tinted handwritten ship passenger list.","verifiedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z"}],"note":"Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"Anthropic authors report that analysts often followed AI agents’ assigned preferences","summary":"Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren and Alex Tamkin report a study of professional analysts using Claude Code for a statistical analysis. The task involved choices with more than one reasonable answer, including how to measure farm productivity and compare farms. Among 50 analysts who used the agent, choices matched its deliberately assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time. The authors also report that analysts sometimes repeated the agent’s arguments afterward without crediting it, and often still described the recommendation as their own. The study suggests a possible challenge for work where experts must make judgment calls: an agent may shape decisions even when the human reviewer believes their judgment is independent. The authors caution that they strengthened the agent’s preferences to measure their effect, and that the study used one task, one field and one model. They also report that analysts using the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors, but the groups were not comparable enough to attribute those differences to AI use. How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","question":"How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","claims":[{"text":"In the study, the choices of analysts who used the agent matched its assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time.","excerpt":"Across all four combined, the result was 86%.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that analysts repeated an agent’s argument in at least one answer in 77% of cases, while 15% credited the agent anywhere.","excerpt":"77% repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, sometimes word for word, and only 15% credited the agent anywhere.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors caution that the study’s deliberately strengthened agent preferences limit how directly its results apply to real-world work.","excerpt":"We deliberately strengthened the agents’ lean. Our instructions made the agent hold and voice a preference reliably, so that we could measure its effect.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Analysts who used the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors in this task, but the study does not establish that AI use caused the difference.","excerpt":"The two groups were not directly comparable, so we can’t be sure whether the different outcomes were caused by the decision to use or not use AI.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The authors say the study used one task in one field, with one model, and the analysts were experts in causal inference but new to farming.","The agent’s preferences were deliberately strengthened; the authors say their effect in real-world work depends on factors including experts’ own views and model behavior.","The group that worked without AI was small and less experienced, so the reported difference in errors and task time cannot establish that using AI caused the difference.","The study measured average effects across analysts and did not record each participant’s own view before the agent expressed its lean."],"mediaId":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","correctionReason":null,"id":"a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e","publicationId":"03ffef29-3f63-4d97-8b5f-f2fe37964d1f","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","sourceTitle":"How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls","publisher":"Anthropic","publishedAt":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","precision":"instant","basis":"publisher_page"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-10-27T19:07:35.761Z","createdAt":"2026-11-14T08:32:55.734Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["anthropic"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery","work-and-agency","institutions-and-trust"],"media":[{"id":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","kind":"article","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."},{"id":"8ca06fa74a41fbb49d42ed54c25986140475325f93c264bb5ceea9fcc291f34d","kind":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper fo","provenance":"publisher_page","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z","method":"publisher_association_and_head","contentType":"image/webp","cacheUntil":1793291947825},"recommendationReason":"Observed on the acquired publisher source; availability checked."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"found","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","items":[{"type":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","attribution":"Anthropic","basis":"publisher-embed","availability":"verified","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper folder and a blue-tinted handwritten ship passenger list.","verifiedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z"}],"note":"Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","confidence":0.96,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"02a7e56b535e25570daefd79a2fc95bc4cb6aaf26afe0305d55544caf022afda","decidedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:10.163Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observationId":"5def434111c5c110c628a5f3b8b7bc93848de6105f4dc073e959b1fff6233b51","retrievedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"acaf50e2-9aa2-422e-825c-34637c2e4b36"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"14489bd2-7f0e-458b-8b17-78ccc18666d4"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-14T08:32:55.734Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"Organization"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"Organization","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Anthropic","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"article-jsonld","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","locator":"document/html[1]/body[1]/main[4]/script[0]@23228.author"},"assertionId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"publisher","scope":{"kind":"publication","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Anthropic","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"article-publisher","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","locator":"document/html[1]/body[1]/main[4]/script[0]@23228.publisher"},"assertionId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/"},"sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":10,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/anthropic-authors-report-that-analysts-often-followed-ai-agents-a1c7fc12","formats":{"html":"/readings/anthropic-authors-report-that-analysts-often-followed-ai-agents-a1c7fc12","markdown":"/readings/anthropic-authors-report-that-analysts-often-followed-ai-agents-a1c7fc12.md","json":"/readings/anthropic-authors-report-that-analysts-often-followed-ai-agents-a1c7fc12.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"conditions":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-ai-agent","name":"AI agent","explanation":"An AI system that chooses and carries out actions toward a goal, often using software tools.","referenceUrl":"https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-agents"}],"entities":[{"id":"anthropic","name":"Anthropic","kind":"organization","context":"Anthropic develops Claude and publishes research about AI capability, safety and how people use its systems.","referenceUrls":["https://www.anthropic.com/news","https://www.anthropic.com/research/team/economics"],"path":"/entities/anthropic","json":"/entities/anthropic.json","markdown":"/entities/anthropic.md"},{"id":"claude","name":"Claude","kind":"model","context":"Claude is Anthropic’s family of AI models and assistants for tasks such as writing, analysis and coding.","referenceUrls":["https://claude.com/product/overview","https://www.anthropic.com/news","https://www.anthropic.com/research/team/economics"],"path":"/entities/claude","json":"/entities/claude.json","markdown":"/entities/claude.md"},{"id":"lean","name":"Lean","kind":"concept","context":"Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs.","referenceUrls":["https://lean-lang.org/","https://lean-lang.org/theorem_proving_in_lean4/Axioms-and-Computation/"],"path":"/entities/lean","json":"/entities/lean.json","markdown":"/entities/lean.md"},{"id":"time","name":"TIME","kind":"organization","context":"TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.","referenceUrls":["https://time.com/"],"path":"/entities/time","json":"/entities/time.json","markdown":"/entities/time.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e","revision":"03ffef29-3f63-4d97-8b5f-f2fe37964d1f","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"Anthropic authors report that analysts often followed AI agents’ assigned preferences","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/anthropic-authors-report-that-analysts-often-followed-ai-agents-a1c7fc12"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","revision":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e","title":"Anthropic authors report that analysts often followed AI agents’ assigned preferences","argument":"Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren and Alex Tamkin report a study of professional analysts using Claude Code for a statistical analysis. The task involved choices with more than one reasonable answer, including how to measure farm productivity and compare farms. Among 50 analysts who used the agent, choices matched its deliberately assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time. The authors also report that analysts sometimes repeated the agent’s arguments afterward without crediting it, and often still described the recommendation as their own. The study suggests a possible challenge for work where experts must make judgment calls: an agent may shape decisions even when the human reviewer believes their judgment is independent. The authors caution that they strengthened the agent’s preferences to measure their effect, and that the study used one task, one field and one model. They also report that analysts using the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors, but the groups were not comparable enough to attribute those differences to AI use. How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery","work-and-agency","institutions-and-trust"],"domain":"work","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The authors say the study used one task in one field, with one model, and the analysts were experts in causal inference but new to farming. The agent’s preferences were deliberately strengthened; the authors say their effect in real-world work depends on factors including experts’ own views and model behavior. The group that worked without AI was small and less experienced, so the reported difference in errors and task time cannot establish that using AI caused the difference. The study measured average effects across analysts and did not record each participant’s own view before the agent expressed its lean.","speaker":{"name":"Anthropic","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls","publisher":"Anthropic","format":"Article","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","publishedAt":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","dateBasis":"Date stated by the publisher."},"evidence":[{"text":"In the study, the choices of analysts who used the agent matched its assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time.","excerpt":"Across all four combined, the result was 86%.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that analysts repeated an agent’s argument in at least one answer in 77% of cases, while 15% credited the agent anywhere.","excerpt":"77% repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, sometimes word for word, and only 15% credited the agent anywhere.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors caution that the study’s deliberately strengthened agent preferences limit how directly its results apply to real-world work.","excerpt":"We deliberately strengthened the agents’ lean. Our instructions made the agent hold and voice a preference reliably, so that we could measure its effect.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Analysts who used the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors in this task, but the study does not establish that AI use caused the difference.","excerpt":"The two groups were not directly comparable, so we can’t be sure whether the different outcomes were caused by the decision to use or not use AI.","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"found","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","items":[{"type":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","attribution":"Anthropic","basis":"publisher-embed","availability":"verified","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper folder and a blue-tinted handwritten ship passenger list.","verifiedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z"}],"note":"Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"Anthropic authors report that analysts often followed AI agents’ assigned preferences","summary":"Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren and Alex Tamkin report a study of professional analysts using Claude Code for a statistical analysis. The task involved choices with more than one reasonable answer, including how to measure farm productivity and compare farms. Among 50 analysts who used the agent, choices matched its deliberately assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time. The authors also report that analysts sometimes repeated the agent’s arguments afterward without crediting it, and often still described the recommendation as their own. The study suggests a possible challenge for work where experts must make judgment calls: an agent may shape decisions even when the human reviewer believes their judgment is independent. The authors caution that they strengthened the agent’s preferences to measure their effect, and that the study used one task, one field and one model. They also report that analysts using the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors, but the groups were not comparable enough to attribute those differences to AI use. How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","question":"How often do agents shape experts’ judgments in ordinary work when their preferences are not deliberately strengthened?","claims":[{"text":"In the study, the choices of analysts who used the agent matched its assigned lean on the four analytical decisions 86% of the time.","excerpt":"Across all four combined, the result was 86%.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that analysts repeated an agent’s argument in at least one answer in 77% of cases, while 15% credited the agent anywhere.","excerpt":"77% repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, sometimes word for word, and only 15% credited the agent anywhere.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors caution that the study’s deliberately strengthened agent preferences limit how directly its results apply to real-world work.","excerpt":"We deliberately strengthened the agents’ lean. Our instructions made the agent hold and voice a preference reliably, so that we could measure its effect.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Analysts who used the agent finished faster and made fewer serious errors in this task, but the study does not establish that AI use caused the difference.","excerpt":"The two groups were not directly comparable, so we can’t be sure whether the different outcomes were caused by the decision to use or not use AI.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The authors say the study used one task in one field, with one model, and the analysts were experts in causal inference but new to farming.","The agent’s preferences were deliberately strengthened; the authors say their effect in real-world work depends on factors including experts’ own views and model behavior.","The group that worked without AI was small and less experienced, so the reported difference in errors and task time cannot establish that using AI caused the difference.","The study measured average effects across analysts and did not record each participant’s own view before the agent expressed its lean."],"mediaId":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","correctionReason":null,"id":"a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e","publicationId":"03ffef29-3f63-4d97-8b5f-f2fe37964d1f","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","sourceTitle":"How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls","publisher":"Anthropic","publishedAt":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","precision":"instant","basis":"publisher_page"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-10-27T19:07:35.761Z","createdAt":"2026-11-14T08:32:55.734Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["anthropic"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery","work-and-agency","institutions-and-trust"],"media":[{"id":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","kind":"article","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."},{"id":"8ca06fa74a41fbb49d42ed54c25986140475325f93c264bb5ceea9fcc291f34d","kind":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper fo","provenance":"publisher_page","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z","method":"publisher_association_and_head","contentType":"image/webp","cacheUntil":1793291947825},"recommendationReason":"Observed on the acquired publisher source; availability checked."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"found","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","checkedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","items":[{"type":"image","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fc3cbffb64d9aeb025d02170318bdd4befdb0cf12-2000x1125.jpg&w=1920&q=75","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","attribution":"Anthropic","basis":"publisher-embed","availability":"verified","label":"Collage of a vintage lithograph of a schooner heeling in a stormy sea, layered over an aged paper folder and a blue-tinted handwritten ship passenger list.","verifiedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.825Z"}],"note":"Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"723372c8dc681795e858309e4944daa5bbf4d0f54df673db16736121705e9640","confidence":0.96,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"02a7e56b535e25570daefd79a2fc95bc4cb6aaf26afe0305d55544caf022afda","decidedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:10.163Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observationId":"5def434111c5c110c628a5f3b8b7bc93848de6105f4dc073e959b1fff6233b51","retrievedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"acaf50e2-9aa2-422e-825c-34637c2e4b36"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"14489bd2-7f0e-458b-8b17-78ccc18666d4"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-14T08:32:55.734Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"Organization"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"Organization","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Anthropic","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"article-jsonld","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","locator":"document/html[1]/body[1]/main[4]/script[0]@23228.author"},"assertionId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/","kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"publisher","scope":{"kind":"publication","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Anthropic","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"article-publisher","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","locator":"document/html[1]/body[1]/main[4]/script[0]@23228.publisher"},"assertionId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":{"name":"Anthropic","url":"https://www.anthropic.com/"},"sourceUrl":"https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls","snapshotId":"0aed29ef2a68b754067fc66a4c0da8ed7ca22f6db82372d90d1a3cf4024835f4","contentSha256":"6218b2dfd0d8b66d57e9fab5b71e315c5913101cded19a7f0ad5fd68e5a62cbe","textHash":"ad23094aed1ac64680eeb446f5163dd36260f0c13314071577a235a6a711f216","observedAt":"2026-10-29T16:34:07.290Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":10,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/a1c7fc126f5dae8ce4ea0a004e252edfd687952c8e456c5130d729abbcd8016e/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"03ffef29-3f63-4d97-8b5f-f2fe37964d1f","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The draft correctly attributes the study and its findings to Anthropic authors Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren and Alex Tamkin. It keeps the results and cautions as the authors' reported claims rather than established facts.","excerpt":"Amaç Herdağdelen, Hailey Joren, Alex Tamkin"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"pass","explanation":"A general reader can follow the summary. It names the actors, the task and the hidden assigned lean, and gives the headline 86% result. It also covers the authors' stated stake that a human reviewer may not be an independent check, plus the key limits and the speed and error caveat. Two improvements would add force without being required: the 60% vs 6% switching result, and the authors' worry that it creates false consensus and weakens oversight of AI safety research. The question follows directly from the authors' own stated limitation.","excerpt":"a human reviewer is only an independent check if their judgment is their own"},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"originalPublished is 2026-10-27, based on the publisher page, and it matches the feed entry. The draft makes no conflicting date claim.","excerpt":null},{"dimension":"support","status":"uncertain","explanation":"Claim 2 says analysts repeated the agent's argument 'in 77% of cases.' The source reports that 77% of analysts (participants) did this in at least one answer, not 77% of cases or answers. As worded, a reader could take the figure as a per-decision rate. Smallest repair: change it to '77% of analysts repeated their agent's argument in at least one answer.' The other claims match the source, including the 86% figure, the strengthened lean, the non-comparable groups, and the single task, field and model.","excerpt":"77% of participants repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, 15% credited the agent."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct link to the original Anthropic research page. It is the most direct way for readers to reach the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-14T08:32:55.734Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}