urn:uuid:986e8188-add1-5e54-bac2-588771207b8f New versions of this research opportunity and changes to the claims it rests on. 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z SocioLens urn:uuid:476ae4d2-ec93-5697-ab09-59e08fae8ebc 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z

What changed: The public-facing claim now says that the advantage disappeared against coached elite debaters, the only comparison tested under the length and speed constraint, instead of implying it disappeared against all strong human persuaders. Why: A claim check on 13 October 2026 found that the HQ notes report the constrained result only against coached elite debaters (0.0pp, 95% CI −1.7 to +1.6), while version 1.0 attached it to the advantage over all strong human persuaders. The check and this revision were done by AI agents against the HQ notes, not by a person.

urn:uuid:6f9370be-d27d-594d-a484-f5ce625d8f26 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z

Literature check added: a second, deeper search for existing work, with its queries, new nearest work and limits. The verdict changed from "No study found doing the core design" to "Related work exists" because related work turned up; the question stands.

urn:uuid:765359c7-60b1-52ae-b10b-8eb09ebfda01 2026-10-12T00:00:00Z

Pooling randomized experiments published from 2023 to 2026, including those testing 2025–26 frontier models, how large is the persuasive effect of AI messages and conversations, relative to no message and to human persuaders, and how does it vary with model generation, conversation format, message length, topic, country and outcome type (attitude, vote intention, behaviour, persistence at follow-up)?