{"id":"b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","argument":"Authors Mingzhan Yang and Weili Wu argue that evaluating clinical LLMs with only “DECIDE” or “ABSTAIN” misses an important distinction: a system may seek more information, or defer a decision to a clinician. They introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation and a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata, then evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. Under identical evidence, the models disagree on which action to take in 137 states. In a matched analysis of Qwen, targeted rather than random information changes the likelihood of a later autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Comparing the three-action policy with a DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline, the authors report a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three-action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions, but also removes some correct ones. Their point is not that adding an “ASK” option uniformly improves clinical decisions; rather, separating information acquisition from deferral makes behavior visible that binary abstention hides, without producing a uniformly improved policy. The abstract reports model behavior on constructed evidence states, not clinical outcomes in practice.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract and does not provide details of the protocol, results by model, or the construction of the 200 DDXPlus evidence states. The abstract describes an evaluation on constructed clinical evidence states; it does not report clinical outcomes in practice. The targeted-versus-random information analysis described in the abstract is for Qwen, so its result should not be generalized to Gemini or GPT.","speaker":{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan, Wu, Weili","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","publishedAt":"2026-10-03","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Yang and Wu propose evaluating clinical LLMs with three actions—DECIDE, ASK, and DEFER—rather than merging distinct non-decision states into binary abstention.","excerpt":"Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors evaluated Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus; the models disagreed on action selection in 137 states.","excerpt":"The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In a matched targeted-versus-random analysis of Qwen, the authors say the selected information changed the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","excerpt":"selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the three-action policy both rescued some erroneous autonomous decisions and removed some correct ones, and did not yield a uniformly improved decision policy.","excerpt":"deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Do these action patterns hold beyond the 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","summary":"Authors Mingzhan Yang and Weili Wu argue that evaluating clinical LLMs with only “DECIDE” or “ABSTAIN” misses an important distinction: a system may seek more information, or defer a decision to a clinician. They introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation and a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata, then evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. Under identical evidence, the models disagree on which action to take in 137 states. In a matched analysis of Qwen, targeted rather than random information changes the likelihood of a later autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Comparing the three-action policy with a DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline, the authors report a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three-action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions, but also removes some correct ones. Their point is not that adding an “ASK” option uniformly improves clinical decisions; rather, separating information acquisition from deferral makes behavior visible that binary abstention hides, without producing a uniformly improved policy. The abstract reports model behavior on constructed evidence states, not clinical outcomes in practice.","question":"Do these action patterns hold beyond the 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus?","claims":[{"text":"Yang and Wu propose evaluating clinical LLMs with three actions—DECIDE, ASK, and DEFER—rather than merging distinct non-decision states into binary abstention.","excerpt":"Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors evaluated Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus; the models disagreed on action selection in 137 states.","excerpt":"The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In a matched targeted-versus-random analysis of Qwen, the authors say the selected information changed the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","excerpt":"selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the three-action policy both rescued some erroneous autonomous decisions and removed some correct ones, and did not yield a uniformly improved decision policy.","excerpt":"deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract and does not provide details of the protocol, results by model, or the construction of the 200 DDXPlus evidence states.","The abstract describes an evaluation on constructed clinical evidence states; it does not report clinical outcomes in practice.","The targeted-versus-random information analysis described in the abstract is for Qwen, so its result should not be generalized to Gemini or GPT."],"mediaId":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","correctionReason":null,"id":"b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac","publicationId":"9a5e8138-fcf3-4484-830f-19048f111b60","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","sourceTitle":"Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-03","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-10-06T07:29:06.180Z","createdAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:47.473Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:00.321Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v6","mediaId":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","confidence":0.7899999999999999,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"fb3c94619b964515ecf29a254356848e311b5b9598ea22bf90d78c0c68db1b3a","decidedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:01.392Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observationId":"4242cbd716544f7f3874bd28d2d56f3b3008932f3656c9825d3b86a50624a144","retrievedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:00.198Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"6568d699-fd17-4172-89b0-3e9853df33b5"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"600429fc-3919-4278-871e-f28b26d6fa39"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:47.473Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Wu, Weili","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Yang, Mingzhan","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Wu, Weili","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Wu, Weili","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-decide-ask-or-defer-clinical-llms-under-incomplete-b8003997","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-decide-ask-or-defer-clinical-llms-under-incomplete-b8003997","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-decide-ask-or-defer-clinical-llms-under-incomplete-b8003997.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-decide-ask-or-defer-clinical-llms-under-incomplete-b8003997.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":[],"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-llm","name":"Large language model","explanation":"A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac","revision":"9a5e8138-fcf3-4484-830f-19048f111b60","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-decide-ask-or-defer-clinical-llms-under-incomplete-b8003997"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","revision":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542"},"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":"b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","argument":"Authors Mingzhan Yang and Weili Wu argue that evaluating clinical LLMs with only “DECIDE” or “ABSTAIN” misses an important distinction: a system may seek more information, or defer a decision to a clinician. They introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation and a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata, then evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. Under identical evidence, the models disagree on which action to take in 137 states. In a matched analysis of Qwen, targeted rather than random information changes the likelihood of a later autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Comparing the three-action policy with a DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline, the authors report a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three-action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions, but also removes some correct ones. Their point is not that adding an “ASK” option uniformly improves clinical decisions; rather, separating information acquisition from deferral makes behavior visible that binary abstention hides, without producing a uniformly improved policy. The abstract reports model behavior on constructed evidence states, not clinical outcomes in practice.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract and does not provide details of the protocol, results by model, or the construction of the 200 DDXPlus evidence states. The abstract describes an evaluation on constructed clinical evidence states; it does not report clinical outcomes in practice. The targeted-versus-random information analysis described in the abstract is for Qwen, so its result should not be generalized to Gemini or GPT.","speaker":{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan, Wu, Weili","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","publishedAt":"2026-10-03","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Yang and Wu propose evaluating clinical LLMs with three actions—DECIDE, ASK, and DEFER—rather than merging distinct non-decision states into binary abstention.","excerpt":"Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors evaluated Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus; the models disagreed on action selection in 137 states.","excerpt":"The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In a matched targeted-versus-random analysis of Qwen, the authors say the selected information changed the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","excerpt":"selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the three-action policy both rescued some erroneous autonomous decisions and removed some correct ones, and did not yield a uniformly improved decision policy.","excerpt":"deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Do these action patterns hold beyond the 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","summary":"Authors Mingzhan Yang and Weili Wu argue that evaluating clinical LLMs with only “DECIDE” or “ABSTAIN” misses an important distinction: a system may seek more information, or defer a decision to a clinician. They introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation and a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata, then evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. Under identical evidence, the models disagree on which action to take in 137 states. In a matched analysis of Qwen, targeted rather than random information changes the likelihood of a later autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Comparing the three-action policy with a DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline, the authors report a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three-action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions, but also removes some correct ones. Their point is not that adding an “ASK” option uniformly improves clinical decisions; rather, separating information acquisition from deferral makes behavior visible that binary abstention hides, without producing a uniformly improved policy. The abstract reports model behavior on constructed evidence states, not clinical outcomes in practice.","question":"Do these action patterns hold beyond the 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus?","claims":[{"text":"Yang and Wu propose evaluating clinical LLMs with three actions—DECIDE, ASK, and DEFER—rather than merging distinct non-decision states into binary abstention.","excerpt":"Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors evaluated Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus; the models disagreed on action selection in 137 states.","excerpt":"The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In a matched targeted-versus-random analysis of Qwen, the authors say the selected information changed the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","excerpt":"selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the three-action policy both rescued some erroneous autonomous decisions and removed some correct ones, and did not yield a uniformly improved decision policy.","excerpt":"deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract and does not provide details of the protocol, results by model, or the construction of the 200 DDXPlus evidence states.","The abstract describes an evaluation on constructed clinical evidence states; it does not report clinical outcomes in practice.","The targeted-versus-random information analysis described in the abstract is for Qwen, so its result should not be generalized to Gemini or GPT."],"mediaId":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","correctionReason":null,"id":"b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac","publicationId":"9a5e8138-fcf3-4484-830f-19048f111b60","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","sourceTitle":"Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-03","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-10-06T07:29:06.180Z","createdAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:47.473Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:00.321Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","checkedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v6","mediaId":"1776b3861e115cc3ab1f4f0a429b71f28598ac2592574ccd2eaac51e96305378","confidence":0.7899999999999999,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"fb3c94619b964515ecf29a254356848e311b5b9598ea22bf90d78c0c68db1b3a","decidedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:01.392Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observationId":"4242cbd716544f7f3874bd28d2d56f3b3008932f3656c9825d3b86a50624a144","retrievedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:00.198Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"6568d699-fd17-4172-89b0-3e9853df33b5"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"600429fc-3919-4278-871e-f28b26d6fa39"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:47.473Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Wu, Weili","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Yang, Mingzhan","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Yang, Mingzhan","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Wu, Weili","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Wu, Weili","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04542","snapshotId":"1a3e6c7e56a7c8a859601c7b6a3c65f447401ac8bd4da347cca5089ecaf0b9b0","contentSha256":"77d19fc0c54bc15c7389b45e257021e3cfa268e1966fd1cd2b6bf9301a485195","textHash":"3ade2a92e0469906571e291285c8be8dadce1e5c6ec852d424ee003712d0ecc6","observedAt":"2026-11-12T03:50:09.227Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/b800399722ccacdd9a30676192f997f7105aa1693527bf0273d16073bd23bfac/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"9a5e8138-fcf3-4484-830f-19048f111b60","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading correctly attributes the paper to Mingzhan Yang and Weili Wu on arXiv cs.AI. It frames the findings as the authors' reports, not established fact.","excerpt":"Authors:Mingzhan Yang, Weili Wu"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The summary faithfully conveys the argument, the 137/200 disagreement, the Qwen-only analysis, the safety autonomy tradeoff, and the no-uniform-improvement conclusion. However, several central terms go unexplained for a non-specialist: DDXPlus (what the source data is), 'matched clinical evidence states', 'blinded protocol', and 'evidence completeness metadata'. LLM and the model names Qwen, Gemini and GPT are also not glossed. Smallest repair: add term-library tooltips or brief plain glosses for DDXPlus and evidence completeness metadata, and suggest library entries where they are missing. The closing two sentences repeat the uniform-improvement point, but that is a style issue only.","excerpt":"We evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished value of 2026-10-03 matches the v1 submission date. It does not use the later v3 revision (9 Nov) or the feed date (11 Nov).","excerpt":"[Submitted on 3 Oct 2026 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2026 (this version, v3)]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"Every claim is source-stated and supported by an exact excerpt. The rescue/remove tradeoff and the denial of uniform improvement match the abstract. The limitations correctly note the Qwen-only scope, the constructed states, and the absence of clinical outcomes. The question follows from the evidence without being leading. There are no invented benefits or costs.","excerpt":"the three action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions but also removes some correct autonomous deci sions."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page, which is the original source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-12T02:47:47.473Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}