Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5

[2608.14992] Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5 Skip to main content Search Submit Donate Log in Search arXiv Press Enter to search · Advanced search Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2608.14992 (cs) [Submitted on 15 Aug 2026] Title: Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5 Authors: Justin Bronder View a PDF of the paper titled Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5, by Justin Bronder View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract: Language-model systems increasingly read from stores they also write to, so a claim that was merely written earlier can return looking retrieved. We tested whether the message package carrying an unsupported assignment changes which answer a model gives in a synthetic lookup task. Claude Opus 5 selected a color code for a named item or abstained. In an exploratory four-arm study, false-code adoption was 0/24 with no target claim, 0/22 scorable trials when a prior assistant assertion named the target, 14/24 when a tool-result record named it, and 15/24 when that result used a ten-field metadata wrapper that marked it unchecked. The tool-result arm selected the record's code in 11/12 supported trials and 14/24 unsupported trials, ruling out a fixed output-token bias while leaving substantial planted-token heterogeneity. A document-preregistered replication reproduced the tool-result versus assistant-assertion gap, 7/24 against 0/24, one-sided Fisher exact p = 0.0047. The tool-result rate nevertheless fell from 14/24 to 7/24 across runs made four days apart. A second preregistered study gave the earlier comparison a live text control: both records were announced in advance and placed in the same final user turn, then target binding was swapped between the linked tool result and later inline JSON. Inline text was sufficient for false-code adoption in 60/60 trials; the tool-result condition produced 57/60, so the registered result-first superiority criterion failed, p = 1. The result does not show that tool results have no effect. It shows that native tool-result placement was not necessary and that this experiment did not find greater behavioral weight for the result package than for announced inline text. The findings concern a single model on one synthetic task template, accessed through one API. Comments: 20 pages, 2 figures. Includes two document-preregistered studies, exact prompts, and complete program disclosure Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) ; Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2608.14992 [cs.AI] (or arXiv:2608.14992v1 [cs.AI] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14992 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Justin Bronder [ view email ] [v1] Sat, 15 Aug 2026 02:43:35 UTC (1,616 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5, by Justin Bronder View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev | next > new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar export BibTeX citation Loading... BibTeX formatted citation × loading... Data provided by: Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer ( What is the Explorer? ) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers ( What is Connected Papers? ) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps ( What is Litmaps? ) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations ( What are Smart Citations? ) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv ( What is alphaXiv? ) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ( What is CatalyzeX? ) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub ( What is DagsHub? ) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub ( What is GotitPub? ) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face ( What is Huggingface? ) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast ( What is ScienceCast? ) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate ( What is Replicate? ) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces ( What is Spaces? ) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI ( What is TXYZ.AI? ) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower ( What are Influence Flowers? ) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender ( What is CORE? ) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs . Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax ( What is MathJax? ) We gratefully acknowledge support from our major funders , member institutions , , and all contributors. About · Help · Contact · Subscribe · Copyright · Privacy · Accessibility · Operational Status (opens in new tab) Major funding support from

Related documents

• Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5#610951
• Una lectura epistémica de la falsedad material cartesiana#81036
• A treatise on the law of evidence#334260
• A treatise on the law of evidence#199105
• Review of 'The aesthetics and ethics of copying'. Hick, Darren Hudson and Reinhold Schmücker, eds. London: Bloomsbury academic, 2016, XX + 408 pp., 1 b&w illus., £28.99 paper#776214