How it was tested
The method, what each result is compared with, and the known limits.
The method
- As of a date. Every fact carries the date it became public. A test set at a past date sees only what was public that day; one rule in the code separates what was knowable from what came later.
- Written down first. Each test, its pass mark and its comparisons were fixed and fingerprinted before the result was read.
- Always compared. A result is shown beside chance, simple rules such as paper count, a hand-set scorecard, and where one exists an AI given the same facts.
- Who graded. Answer keys are built by code from dated public events. Where a judgement was needed, such as whether a claim matches its source, a separate AI made it. No person graded anything.
- Public data only. Papers, grants, patents, trial records and SEC filings.
Known limits
- The seed-stage result is the one fresh test that passed its mark. Over the whole list the model and an AI given the same facts are level.
- The two lab results on the Results page come from dates the model was designed with in view. They are a best case, not a fresh test. The fresh lab test passed its mark, but did not hold up when a second audit corrected the labels.
- "A lab formed a company" is read from SEC filings that name the lab head. An audit found this misses most spinouts, so every lab number is measured against an incomplete answer key.
- The report check measures whether a claim matches its source. It does not measure whether the source is true or whether the read was right. The wrong claims slipped in were easy ones.
- In the worked runs the AI was given the company's name, so it may know what happened later. Long filings were read in part. Only public companies with an annual report can be run.
- The valuation range is context from earlier deals, not a valuation. No stage gives a verdict.
- Reports and briefs on this site are examples. None has been verified by a person or published as a memo.
Not on the Results page
9 of 16 registered tests are not shown as results, because they did not pass, were too small to judge, or are not finished:
- How early a founding lab was surfaced before its field crowded: not finished yet.
- Find the founding lab from the company's first description: too small to judge.
- How good are the company-forming labels: did not pass.
- Do past company-forming rates predict an institution's later spinouts: could not tell either way.
- Name the competitors a later 10-K names: not finished yet.
- Does the next financing fall inside the runway band: not finished yet.
- Does the science reader doubt programs that later failed: not finished yet.
- Does the science reader doubt papers later retracted: did not pass.
- Was the deal later written down: not finished yet.
The detail
The model and its tests
Every past test with its numbers, the dated receipts, and what failed.
Sources and gaps
Where every number comes from, the date range of each source, and what is missing.
Who graded what
What was scored by code, by an AI, or by a person.
How the search works, and what it cannot do
The same index as the command line
297,038 papers are searchable: every paper in the index. 202,638 of them (68%) have extracted claims; the rest had no abstract to read and match on their title only. Papers run from 2010-01-01 to 2025-12-31.
The index is 22,987 static files, 229 MB. Your browser fetches only the files for your words: about 2.9 MB for a first search and 144 KB for each later one (largest measured: 3.6 MB and 868 KB).
The same ranking, checked by code
The browser returned the same ten labs in the same order as the command-line search in 360 of 360 cases (30 queries, 6 dates, filter on and off). Its word stemmer matched the index on 329,906 words with 0 mismatches. Checked 2026-11-10. code-checked
Because the ranking is the same, its measured quality applies: with the product filter on, 0.86 of the top ten labs were relevant, against 0.58 for plain keyword search on the same abstracts (difference +0.28, 95% interval +0.19 to +0.36; 20 queries; better on 15, tied on 4, worse on 0). AI-judged Method.
Your date is applied in your browser
The files hold the whole corpus, with each paper's date. A static file cannot know your date, so the page drops every paper and company link dated after it before ranking. A date before the first paper returns nothing. The date rule is one function, tested against the project's own.
A lab with no last-author paper for 24 months before your date is marked possibly inactive. It may have moved, changed direction or closed; the data cannot tell which.
What it cannot do
No synonyms: a topic phrased unusually finds nothing. Claims come from claude-haiku-5-5 reading one abstract each; 98% (95% interval 94% to 99%) of sampled claims were supported by their abstract, graded by AI readers, not by a person. A lab is three recent papers at each of 4 year-ends, so its key paper can be missing. A common word is cut off at its 20,000 best-matching papers, as on the command line.