R0023/2026-03-25/Q003/H2¶
Statement¶
Published evidence is sparse or anecdotal — prompt degradation is mainly an industry complaint lacking rigorous systematic investigation.
Status¶
Current: Partially supported
The Chen et al. study is a genuine exception, but it remains the only rigorous peer-reviewed study documenting cross-version prompt degradation. Beyond this single study, the evidence is indeed industry blog posts, vendor content, and practitioner anecdotes without empirical rigor. H2's characterization that evidence is "sparse" is accurate, even if it goes too far in dismissing the phenomenon entirely.
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Industry article cites no specific data or studies — exactly the pattern H2 describes |
| SRC02-E01 | Stochastic variation may account for some perceived degradation |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Chen et al. is a rigorous study, not anecdotal — directly contradicts H2's blanket dismissal |
Reasoning¶
H2 is partially correct about the evidence landscape but wrong to dismiss the phenomenon entirely. Chen et al. is rigorous, reproducible, and shows dramatic effects. H2 would be correct if it said "published evidence is concentrated in one study" rather than "merely anecdotal."
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 captures the real limitation of the evidence base (narrow) while incorrectly dismissing the phenomenon. H3 provides the more accurate characterization.