Sealed on Base.
This receipt hash matches the stored payload and has a Base transaction attached.
StatusSealed
Stored hash0x1dc7eb...8b73e3
Recomputed hash0x1dc7eb...8b73e3
Versionfp-receipt-v1
Content hash
0x1dc7eb903f013cd71c550161511d7f7b0121f2c844fccb8e4632b9d5c88b73e3Base transaction0xa06fd7202189c487890f93415c12fe7a76368b7c5171eddf621607d4142d0ceeSealed 6/22/2026, 6:54:00 PM
What this proves
The hash proves this receipt content matches the stored seal payload. Once a Base transaction is attached, it proves the hash existed at that onchain timestamp. It does not prove the claim is true by itself.
Canonical payload
{"canonicalPath":"/v/ai-detectors-are-accurate-enough-1up0f","receipt":{"challengePrompt":"A user argues that AI detectors have self-reported accuracy rates of over 98% and should be trusted to issue punishments directly.","claim":"AI detectors are accurate enough to punish students without a second review.","confidence":"High","createdAt":"2026-06-21T05:25:49.057Z","kicker":"AI detector scores are not strong enough for punishment by themselves.","paidAt":"2026-06-21T05:25:49.056Z","reasons":[{"body":"Teaching guidance from MIT warns that detector software can falsely accuse students of misconduct.","stance":"weakens","title":"False positives are a known risk"},{"body":"Vanderbilt disabled Turnitin AI detection because the risk profile was not acceptable for students and faculty.","stance":"weakens","title":"Universities have backed away from sole reliance"},{"body":"Stanford HAI reported that AI detectors can over-flag non-native English writing, making unsupported punishment especially risky.","stance":"context","title":"Bias makes one-score punishment worse"}],"score":5,"shareLine":"FactPage check: FALSE. AI detectors are not accurate enough to punish students without human review and supporting evidence.","slug":"ai-detectors-are-accurate-enough-1up0f","sources":[{"imageUrl":null,"publisher":"MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies","title":"AI Detectors Don't Work","url":"https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-work/","usedFor":"Teaching guidance on false positives and why detector scores should not settle misconduct cases."},{"imageUrl":null,"publisher":"Vanderbilt University","title":"Guidance on AI Detection","url":"https://www.vanderbilt.edu/brightspace/2023/08/16/guidance-on-ai-detection-and-why-were-disabling-turnitins-ai-detector/","usedFor":"Institutional decision explaining reliability concerns around Turnitin AI detection."},{"imageUrl":null,"publisher":"Stanford HAI","title":"AI Detectors Biased Against Non-Native English Writers","url":"https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-non-native-english-writers","usedFor":"Research summary on detector bias and false accusation risk."}],"summary":"No. AI detectors can be useful prompts for a conversation, but education guidance and research point to false positives, false negatives, and bias risks. In a discipline case, a detector score should be checked against human review, writing process evidence, and the assignment context.","vaultCategory":"AI detector","verdict":"FALSE"},"type":"factpage.receipt","version":"fp-receipt-v1"}