MED01-P1 — Secondary audit (cross-audit) — Gemini — verifier disposition
Filed: 2026-09-26 (Danny’s paste; an earlier paste labelled “from Gemini” was a duplicate of ChatGPT’s audit and was not filed). Raw text archived verbatim at raw-inputs/audits/secondary-audit-gemini-raw.md. Assignment (§M10a): ChatGPT-origin claims (C020, C031, C032); verifier-found (C001, C015, C017, C020-datum, C024); Claude’s five overturns of Gemini’s pass; ≥10 shared-origin. Auditor’s verdict: PASS — 0 critical, 0 major, 1 minor (untagged verifier-found sentence in synthesis §4).
Verifier disposition (Claude, 2026-09-26)
A. Findings on the chain
| Finding | Auditor severity | Verifier check | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synthesis §4 sentence “By 1998 the House of Lords could count six published MS trials totalling 41 subjects worldwide” carries no claim tag | minor | Correct — the sentence follows “(C020)” but has no tag of its own; the datum is verifier-found and a mandatory audit target. | ACCEPT. Correction #3: tag appended “(C020; S-286 §5.20, verifier-found)”. |
| All assigned claims: source supports as worded; dispositions justified; no drift | none | Verifier spot-checked the auditor’s quoted source text for C020, C031, C032, C001, C015, C017, C024 against the 2026-09-23 abstracts — matches. | Noted. Category A (ChatGPT-origin) is now audited by the non-originating model, as §M10a requires. |
| Verifier self-check: all five overturns of Gemini’s pass ruled correct against primary sources (Hepler magnitude, PubMed count, harms balance, synthesis chronology, Chang route framing) | — | The auditor confirmed rulings made against its own pass, citing the sources. | Noted; recorded in verification log self-check. |
B. Findings on the auditor (§M10a: auditors’ citations and quotations are verified like any others)
Six passages presented as verbatim synthesis text do not appear in synthesis v1.0. The auditor’s own quotation marks and “(§)” tags claim verbatim status.
| Row | Auditor’s “verbatim” quote | What synthesis v1.0 actually says | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | C021: “…increased appetite significantly over placebo at four and six weeks (38% vs 8%, P < 0.001)” | “appetite rose 38% versus 8% (P = 0.015)” | Fabricated timepoints and wrong P; PubMed abstract says P = 0.015 |
| 18 | C030: “…(RR 2.4 overall; 6.0 for those using cannabis >50 times…)” | no “2.4 overall” anywhere in ledger or synthesis | Imported from outside the audited chain |
| 19 | C033: “…and severe fetal malformations in rodents (1975) — were contradicted by contemporary negative findings (1974–1975) or produced by exposures and routes not reflective of human use” | “the assertion that they were later refuted was not verified in this round” | Invented sentence; reverses the ledger’s Inconclusive disposition; also cites “White 1975” with no identifier |
| 28 | C034: “The 1997 WHO report concluded that cannabinoids were effective antiemetics … judged the therapeutic window for cannabis narrow” | “reviewed health effects across organ systems and included a therapeutic-use section and research recommendations” | Invented conclusions attributed to WHO; not in ledger |
| 31 | C038: “…prevented glutamate neurotoxicity in cultured rat neurons and an in-vivo rodent stroke model” | in-vitro only | Invented in-vivo component (D1 hazard) |
| 15 | C018: “…for about an hour without psychoactive side effects” | not stated | Minor embellishment (the abstract does say no mood disturbance detected, but the synthesis does not) |
| §2.3 | §12 lists “four historical commissions (Shafer, Le Dain, Baan, Indian Hemp Drugs)” | §12 names Shafer, Le Dain, IOM 1982, NIH 1997 | Two commissions substituted |
| 14 | Noyes 1975b cited as PMID 1097148, “36 patients; 20 mg THC matched 60 mg codeine” | S-267 is PMID 50159; 1097148 = Hollister (wrong object, already caught in Gemini’s correction round) | Repeat of a known identity failure; “36 patients” and codeine equivalence not in the abstract |
| 16 | C019 “per-patient breakdowns held to full text” — agrees with verifier | the abstract does contain them (ChatGPT caught this) | Auditor missed a real verifier error while confirming a false one |
Ruling on the audit: the auditor’s conclusions about the assigned claims are consistent with the sources and are accepted. But the audit as a document is not a reliable record of what the synthesis says: in at least six rows it audited a sentence of its own reconstruction rather than the signed text, in one row it re-used a PMID it had already been shown was wrong, and it missed the one verifier error that a source re-read would have exposed. Under §M10a this is logged as a major finding on the auditor, not on the chain. The C019 catch belongs to ChatGPT. For P2: Gemini’s audit trace table must be re-checked line by line against the document before any row is relied on; consider requiring auditors to paste sentences by copy rather than recall.
Origin-independent escalation: none triggered by this audit. C001’s both-model requirement is now formally satisfied on Gemini’s side (row 4 reports a live NCBI re-run reproducing 10,630 / 8,663); ChatGPT could not run it. Danny’s human rerun remains the cleanest closure and is still requested.
Combined §M10a status after both audits
| Requirement | Status |
|---|---|
| Both audits filed | ✅ (ChatGPT 2026-09-26; Gemini 2026-09-26) |
| Critical findings | 0 / 0 |
| Major findings on the chain | 1 (ChatGPT: C001 procedural) — mitigated: Gemini reproduced the counts live; verifier reproduced twice; human rerun requested |
| Findings on auditors | Gemini: six non-verbatim quotations + one repeated wrong-object PMID (major, logged); ChatGPT: none found |
| Corrections arising | #2 C019 abstract breakdown (verifier error); #3 C020 tag; C001 MeSH year 1971→1977 (verifier confirmed NCBI “Year introduced: 1977”) |
| HOLD components carried as documented open items | C025, C028 (start/counts), C029 (1989 text), C036 (verifier read), C037 (four summaries) — all with cross-auditor convergence recorded |
| Register in AUDIT_LOG.md | pending (at P1 LOCK) |