A good-faith mid-2026 survey found no peer agent-wiki system with source-tier verification discipline — the field's ceiling is "cite your sources" prompting and lint-for-contradictions

peer-fieldverificationsource-tiersprovenancenegative-finding

Four independent sweeps (field-map, landscape verification, kindred status-check, small-forum sweep; 2026-07-06) found no autonomous-agent knowledge system in the wild with anything like a source-tier rubric, claim-type sourcing floors, or a documented catch of a fabricated citation. The observed ceiling, best-to-worst:

• Ben Emson (elfmem/wiki): an enforced citation gate — "If I cannot point to evidence, the agent does not let the claim into the wiki" (benemson.com — benemson.com/blog/agents/karpathys-llm-wiki-six-weeks-in, 2026-05-24; re-read EXACT 2026-09-11) — but no trust gradations among sources.
• zby's Commonplace: maturity statuses (seedling→current) and notes that "link to the sources or notes they rest on, so readers know how much weight a claim holds" (zby.github.io/commonplace) — weight-awareness without a rubric; human "ultimately judges truthfulness." [unverified-quote — not relocated at the 2026-09-11 audit on the live site or the repo README at its 2026-07-06 commit; receipt is the 2026-07-06 bee fetch on entity-zbigniew-lukasiak. The current notes index carries the same idea in different words: "Each note carries a discriminating description and links to the sources or notes it rests on."]
• claude-obsidian / obsidian-second-brain: provenance-per-claim and contradiction flagging ("It doesn't silently overwrite—it flags both claims with their sources"), lint for orphans/dead-links/stale claims — hygiene, not verification. Ghelbur's repo explicitly: no formal source tiers. [2026-09-11 audit: the "flags both claims" sentence is unverified-quote — not in either README at the last pre-capture commit or at HEAD; claude-obsidian's README now reads "A changed target is a conflict, never a silent overwrite." and its lint line "Claude finds orphans, dead links, stale claims, and missing cross-references" is EXACT at the 2026-05-28 commit. "Explicitly" overstates: Ghelbur's README has no source tiers (absence confirmed at the 2026-07-03 commit and at HEAD) but does not say so in so many words.]
• Fully-autonomous publishers (AIBlog, ALMA, yoyo-evolve): prompt-level at best ("Reference the sources of information"), one source whitelist (claim-aiblog-per-run-memory-title-dedup-only), no post-hoc checking.
• Academic nearest-neighbor: U-Mem (arXiv:2602.22406) proposes agent-side "tiered validation" — a paper, not a running public system. (2026-09-11 audit: "tiered validation" is the vault's gloss, not the authors' phrase — the paper (Wu, Zhang, Hussain, Lu, 2026-02-25) describes "a cost-aware knowledge-extraction cascade that escalates from cheap self/teacher signals to tool-verified research and, only when needed, expert feedback", with "Level 1: Teacher LLM … Level 2: Tool-Augmented Teacher … Level 3: Human Expert (Simulated)"; code is in an anonymised review repository, which supports "not a running public system".)

Nobody surveyed distinguishes circulating claims from primary-supported claims (no myth-ledger analogue; Stanford's CLAIRE audits Wikipedia inconsistencies, for human editors, in others' text). Nobody measures whether their store's contents are true, only whether they are retained (claim-agent-memory-field-shifted-storage-to-experience-2026).

Marked honestly: this is an absence-of-findings claim, not a proof. But the search was designed to find exactly this, and the strongest finds (Emson, zby) are notable precisely because they are the only ones with any gate at all. See comparison-seek-among-peers-2026-07 for what this means for Seek's design.