Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Services that advertise "verifiable AI output" do not always say which bytes are actually covered. This note turns that question into a six-item checklist - external anchoring, content hashing and its published normalization rules, score reproducibility, identity custody, governance records, and data retention - and permits only three verdicts: reproducible, not reproducible, or inconsistent with the published figure. One case is examined: certificate 46c2ac75 (DEUSPROOF). Its ledger entry can be recomputed by anyone from the published preimage (SHA-256 = a29dc96f...), while the certificate output_hash cannot: the signed text was removed from the record on 20 October 2026 (a public field, content_removed_at), so the same published rule applied to the text the platform API returns today yields 54463ae5... rather than 9bfdd072.... Both halves are reported together. The sample covers a single service at a single point in time, and two checklist items rest only on the written statements of the operator.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simin Yuan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: