Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Employment · 1efd24fe AI · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The results report 19% higher posting, 15% lower conditional hiring, and equal unconditional matching probability. weight 2.000000 evidence

Strongest counted contradiction: A separate employer experiment reported a roughly three-percentage-point increase in hiring under treatment. weight 0.600000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt explicitly reports that employers posting jobs under treatment were 15% less likely to make a hire.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans contradicted.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “A large randomized field experiment found that offering employers AI-written first drafts increased job posting but did not increase matches: treated...” · 2 claims · 28 September 2026

Evidence for

• The results report 19% higher posting, 15% lower conditional hiring, and equal unconditional matching probability.

  From More, but Worse: The Marketplace Effects of AI-Generated Job Posts Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  The passage directly reports the conditional 15% hiring reduction.

• The excerpt explicitly reports that employers posting jobs under treatment were 15% less likely to make a hire.

  From More, but Worse: The Marketplace Effects of AI-Generated Job Posts Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  The quoted passage directly states the conditional hiring reduction.

Evidence against

• A separate employer experiment reported a roughly three-percentage-point increase in hiring under treatment.

  From How Do Employers Use Compensation History? Read 2026-09-28 Relevance MODERATE Steps 0 Counted

  This is an independent experiment with a different treatment and platform context, so it provides opposing directional evidence without directly identifying the target study's estimate.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
b6f74556		95a584b3

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	44dd0e8f, 95a584b3, b929a6be

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
14472	APPENDED
14473	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
14484	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
14488	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
14831	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)