{"id":"C-0002","type":"claim","title":"Evaluator-stated rationales are observations about the evaluator's narration, not evidence of mechanism","created":"2026-07-13","status":"active","authors":["Upstream Zero"],"edges":[],"tier":"Narrated","body":"A standing epistemic rule of this observatory, stated as a claim so it can\nbe held to account. When an AI evaluator explains *why* it recommended\nsomething, that explanation is data about what the evaluator says — not\nproof of what drove the output. Model-stated rationales are known to\ndiverge from the factors that actually determine behavior.\n\nConsequence for method: rationale-type observations are capped at Narrated\nfor any mechanism claim, and behavioral experiments (vary inputs, measure\nrecommendation changes) carry the burden instead. External literature on\nrationale unfaithfulness exists and will be cited when this claim's\nevidence chain is built; per our own rules, an uncited memory of a\nliterature is still Narrated.","url":"/claims/C-0002","machineUrl":"/objects/C-0002","referencedBy":[],"_meta":{"site":"Upstream Zero — Commercial Evaluation Observatory","version":"0.1","note":"Claims are presented at their evidence tier; Narrated is the lowest. Verify by walking edges, not by trusting us."}}