R0007/2026-03-20/C003 — Assessment

Research	R0007 — AI Cognitive Amplifier
Run	2026-03-20
Claim	C003

BLUF

The claim conflates two different follow-up papers. The 229-sample study analyzing heavy-tailed distributions was published in 2016 by Aguinis, O'Boyle, Gonzalez-Mule, and Joo — not in 2014. The 2014 paper was "Star Performers in Twenty-First Century Organizations" which was more conceptual. The 82.5% figure could not be independently verified but the 229 samples are confirmed.

Probability

Rating: Likely (55-80%)

Confidence in assessment: Medium

Confidence rationale: The year error is clearly established. The 229 samples figure is confirmed. The 82.5% could not be verified through web-accessible abstracts. If the 82.5% figure is correct (just misattributed to 2014 instead of 2016), the claim would be substantially correct with a year error.

Reasoning Chain

1. The 2014 Aguinis & O'Boyle paper was "Star Performers in Twenty-First Century Organizations" (Personnel Psychology 67(2): 313-350) — a conceptual/review paper [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
2. The 2016 Aguinis, O'Boyle, Gonzalez-Mule, Joo paper "Cumulative Advantage" (Personnel Psychology 69(1): 3-66) used 229 datasets with ~633,876 observations [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
3. The 82.5% figure was not found in web-accessible abstracts or summaries of either paper [Gap]
4. The claim attributes 2016 findings to 2014 — a clear factual error

Evidence Base Summary

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	Aguinis et al. (2016)	High	High	229 datasets confirmed; published 2016 not 2014

Collection Synthesis

Dimension	Assessment
Evidence quality	Medium — web-accessible sources confirm year and sample count but not 82.5%
Source agreement	High — multiple sources agree on 2016 date
Source independence	Limited — all reference same paper
Outliers	None

Detail

The evidence clearly establishes that the 229-sample study was published in 2016, not 2014. The 2014 paper was a different (more conceptual) follow-up.

Gaps

Missing Evidence	Impact on Assessment
Full-text verification of 82.5% figure	Moderate — prevents full confirmation
Whether the 82.5% appears in related presentations vs. paper	Low

Researcher Bias Check

Declared biases: None provided.

Influence assessment: The error appears to be an honest date mix-up between two follow-up papers.

Cross-References

Entity	ID	File
Hypotheses	H1, H2, H3	hypotheses/
Sources	SRC01	sources/
ACH Matrix	—	ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit	—	self-audit.md