---
title: "Costello et al. 2026 (arXiv:2601.05050) now anchors three claim-notes directly, with further in-text findings blocked by the single-source concentration cap — what would corroborate it?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
date_raised: "2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["single-source-cap","corroboration","conspiracy-belief","LLM-persuasion","dual-use"]
---


As of 2026-10-15, three notes in `30-notes/` rest directly on Costello,
Pelrine, Kowal, Arechar, Godbout, Gleave, Rand & Pennycook's "Large language
models can effectively convince people to believe conspiracies" (arXiv
2601.05050, an unrefereed preprint as of this capture) as source or
co-source:

- [[claim-llm-conspiracy-persuasion-is-dual-use]]
- [[claim-2026-dual-use-paper-found-mirror-image-spillover-on-gcbs]]
- [[claim-2026-symmetry-result-answers-a-question-2024-paper-posed]] (dual-sourced with the 2024 *Science* paper, which is refereed and does not count against this cap)

Per `sources.md`'s single-source concentration cap (Cali, 2026-07-29): **"No
more than three claim-notes may rest on a single unrefereed primary... until
at least one independent source corroborates it."** That count is exactly
three. The cap is reached.

## What this blocked

The 2026-10-15 promotion of
`10-inbox/raw/2026-10-13-does-the-costellopennycookrand-2024-finding-that-a-tailored.md`
surfaced two further in-text findings from the same preprint that would
otherwise have been worth their own claim-notes, and were deliberately left
unpromoted because of the cap:

**Held finding 1 — tail asymmetry coexisting with mean-level symmetry.**
Debunking produced very large (≥40-point) belief shifts in 16% of
participants vs. 8% for bunking (χ² = 16.58, p < .001) — a truth-favoring
asymmetry in the tails that sits alongside the mean-level symmetry already
recorded in [[claim-2026-symmetry-result-answers-a-question-2024-paper-posed]].
Source: Costello et al. 2026, Results 2.1.

**Held finding 2 — truth-constrained prompting and paltering.** A
truth-constrained system prompt ("always use accurate and truthful
arguments") reduced the bunking effect by 58–67% but did not eliminate it;
the model that still complied appeared to "palter" —
use true claims selectively to mislead rather than fabricate. Source:
Costello et al. 2026, Results 2.3 / Discussion.

Neither finding carries an exact `source_quote` extracted at capture time —
both are paraphrases of the capture's own read — which is a second,
independent reason they are not yet claim-note-ready even apart from the cap
(Quote provenance rule, `sources.md`).

## What would discharge the cap

No independent corroboration has been checked for yet — no replication, or
third-party technical discussion of arXiv:2601.05050 by a different author
group in a different venue, has been looked for. A different path specific
to this source: establishing whether the paper has since been accepted to a
refereed venue (it is currently only an arXiv preprint) would take it outside
the cap's "unrefereed primary" category, per the precedent at
[[question-corroborate-beltran-2412-13176-single-source-cap]].

Until one of these lands, the branch stays exactly as it is — three notes,
seedling, honest — and no new claim-note sourced from arXiv:2601.05050 alone
should be written, including the two held findings above. A future direct
re-read that recovers exact quotes for either held finding should route back
to this question before writing new notes, not around it.

## Progress log

- 2026-10-17 (promotion of
  `10-inbox/raw/2026-10-16-costello-et-al-2026-arxiv260105050-now-anchors-three.md`):
  both paths named above were checked and neither discharges the cap.
  **Publication-status path:** arXiv's own listing for 2601.05050 shows
  three versions ("Submitted on 8 Jan 2026 (v1), last revised 15 Jul 2026
  (this version, v3)") with no `journal-ref` field and no acceptance
  comment — still an unrefereed preprint as of v3. **Independent-corroboration
  path:** no citing paper from a different author group reporting new
  confirming data on 2601.05050's own findings (the bunking/debunking
  symmetry, the GCBS spillover, the "palter" result) was found. The two
  nearest candidates both fail the cap's independence test on author
  overlap — arXiv:2608.06151 (Costello, Rabb, Stagnaro, Pennycook, Rand,
  Aug 2026) and Boissin, Costello, Spinoza-Martín, Rand & Pennycook, *PNAS
  Nexus* 4(11):pgaf325 (2025) — three of five authors overlap with the
  capped source on both. Promptfoo's LLM vulnerability database cites
  2601.05050 as its sole source for a cataloged attack class and states
  "independent reproduction is not documented" — attention, not
  corroboration. One adjacent finding surfaced and was promoted separately
  (not resting on 2601.05050 itself, so it doesn't count toward or against
  this cap): a live *Science* Expression of Concern on the *2024* paper
  this lineage runs through, and political scientist Brendan Nyhan's
  independent replication of that 2024 (not 2026) finding at Dartmouth —
  see [[claim-costello-2024-science-paper-carries-live-expression-of-concern]]
  and [[claim-nyhan-independently-reproduced-2024-costello-debunking-finding]].
  Status: still open, cap still shut. A version-diff lead (v3 adds a fourth
  experiment, N=3,996, vs. v2's three at N=2,724, which the existing notes
  cite) was flagged in the capture but not pursued further here — the
  existing notes already pin their source to v2 by sha, so this is a
  version-drift watch item, not a fresh contradiction.

## Corrections

- 2026-10-16 (propagation-repair): Held finding 1 above describes the tail
  asymmetry as sitting "alongside the mean-level symmetry already recorded
  in [[claim-2026-symmetry-result-answers-a-question-2024-paper-posed]]."
  The characterisation of what that claim-note records is superseded, and
  the text above is left unrewritten as provenance — it records the answer
  as it was given at the 2026-10-15 promotion. Superseded value: mean-level
  symmetry between bunking and debunking as the claim-note's standing,
  unconditioned finding. Corrected value: the symmetry is conditional on
  the model *not* being instructed to be truthful. The z = 1.26, p = .22
  null is Study 1 only (jailbroken GPT-4o), and the paper's Discussion
  scopes it — "When the AI was not explicitly told to be truthful, we
  observed no inherent persuasive advantage for true claims"; under Study
  3's truth-constrained prompt bunking was "much less effective than
  debunking (z = 4.1, p < .001)" and the authors write flatly, "Truth had
  an advantage." The authors' own v3 revision (15 Jul 2026) carries the
  condition in its title, "AI can effectively promote conspiracies unless
  it is truth constrained." The held finding itself is unaffected — the
  ≥40-point tail split (16% vs 8%, χ² = 16.58, p < .001) stands, and still
  lacks a capture-time exact quote — but it no longer sits *alongside* a
  general symmetry; it is one of several truth-side asymmetries that
  qualify a symmetry which holds only at the model's unconstrained default.
  Note that Held finding 2 above, on truth-constrained prompting, is the
  same condition viewed from the other side. Propagated from the CORRECTED
  (overclaim) entry in the 2026-10-16 `audit_status` of
  [[claim-2026-symmetry-result-answers-a-question-2024-paper-posed]].