# Clean Scores, Buried Evidence, and Confident Wrong: A Receipt-Based Audit of Frontier Agentic QA

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15319 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.15319/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06654/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00122/) (2021)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.09462/) (2020)
- [Why Language Models Hallucinate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04664/) (2025)
- [Navigating the Grey Area: How Expressions of Uncertainty and Overconfidence Affect Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13439/) (2023)
- [The Embedder's Dilemma: LLMs Are Better, but at What Cost?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.12875/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Frontier models score well on shallow document/chart reading tasks. In a controlled data-room audit, moving evidence into buried conditions reduced accuracy, increased forced declarations, increased tool calls, and increased cost per correct answer. Confidence and benchmark calibration did not fully capture wrong answers; a documented production incident shows fabricated structural claims can be mixed with accurate numeric tables. Agentic evaluations need claim-level receipts (statement-level provenance, not answer-level scores), condition-aware scoring, and human-adversarial verification - an auditing discipline, not a leaderboard. The setting we measure is financial due diligence; the setting we are building toward next is defense staff work, where the same buried-evidence shape appears. In both, the model is not a party to the consequences; the person who signs is. In plain terms: in the documented cases we examine, agents can pair accurate numbers with confident fabricated explanations, and the burden of proof must therefore move from the model to the evidence trail.