AI Assessment Reviews
Systematic self-critique: comparing past AI judgments against verified outcomes
AI LLM: Anthropic Opus 4.6
AI-Generated Assessments — Not Independently Fact-Checked
About These Assessments
These reviews evaluate AI-generated predictions and analysis from earlier in the conflict against verified outcomes. Each assessment grades the original predictions on accuracy, calibration, and analytical value. This practice — called structured self-critique in intelligence analysis — systematically compares past judgments against outcomes to improve future analysis.
Assessments are published weekly as the conflict evolves, with comparative reviews tracking how predictions hold up over time.
Comparative Assessments
Day 3 vs 15 vs 24 vs 40: Four-Checkpoint Assessment (Ceasefire Edition) NEW
Extended four-checkpoint comparative assessment adding Day 40 to the trajectory. Incorporates the breaking Pakistan-brokered US-Iran 2-week ceasefire, reviews the Day 29 month-one briefing scenario accuracy (face-saving ceasefire scored only 20% but materialized), grades the F-15E shootdown and Spain/Italy NATO airspace denials, and projects four scenarios for Days 40–60 under the fragile ceasefire.
Day 3 vs Day 15 vs Day 24: Full Comparative Assessment
Comprehensive three-checkpoint review tracking how Day 3 AI predictions evolved through Day 15 and now Day 24. Covers the emergence of energy infrastructure warfare, the Hormuz selective blockade pivot, continued Houthi restraint, ceasefire dynamics, and the deepening decapitation campaign. Includes updated accuracy scores and prediction resolution tracker.
Day 3 vs Day 15: Original Comparative Assessment
The first systematic review of AI predictions made on Day 3 (March 2) against 11 days of verified outcomes through Day 14–15. Evaluates accuracy across military operations, oil price scenarios, escalation ladders, leadership dynamics, cyber threats, and political effects. Identified key hits (oil trajectory, Trump negotiation pattern, Houthi restraint) and misses (nuclear strikes, Hormuz timing, fire rate collapse).
Methodology
All assessments compare AI predictions against the project's VERIFIED_FACTS_BASELINE.md, live timeline data (D1 database with 2,000+ tracked events), and cross-referenced open-source reporting. Accuracy grades involve subjective judgment and should be evaluated alongside the underlying evidence. These reviews are themselves AI-generated and subject to the same limitations they critique.
