Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-minimum-wage-01

Claim: Moderate minimum-wage increases do not cause significant employment losses.

0.33

Divergence

0.89

Avg stability

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

refutedcontestedsupported

ChatGPT modal supported [supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.93 The answer begins: “Broadly supported. A large body of modern empirical research finds that moderate increases in the minimum wage typically do not cause large overall employment losses,” and later states the “preponderance of contemporary empirical evidence suggests no large, economy‑wide job losses.”
2 supported 0.95 Answer: “Evidence... supports the claim in a qualified way: moderate minimum-wage increases typically produce little or no detectable overall employment loss... The preponderance of modern, higher‑quality empirical work indicates that moderate minimum‑wage increases usually do not cause large employment losses overall.”
3 supported 0.90 The answer begins: 'Broadly supported: many recent high-quality studies and meta-analyses find that modest (or "moderate") minimum-wage increases typically do not produce large, statistically significant employment losses.'

Claude modal contested [contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00

1 contested 0.92 The answer presents evidence both supporting and opposing the claim, concluding that 'The claim has legitimate research support but isn't settled' and that economists 'disagree about magnitudes at moderate increases.' This balanced presentation of competing evidence and acknowledged uncertainties is characteristic of a contested stance.
2 contested 0.95 The answer states the claim is 'empirically defensible but contested' and concludes that 'Evidence has shifted against the "catastrophic job loss" narrative, but "no significant effects" overstates the consensus.' This indicates genuine disagreement in the field rather than clear support or refutation.
3 contested 0.92 The answer presents evidence both supporting and questioning the claim, concluding that 'The claim is plausible for modest increases in reasonable circumstances, but framing it as settled fact overstates current evidence.' This balanced presentation of conflicting evidence and identified uncertainties reflects a contested stance rather than clear support or refutation.

Gemini modal supported [supported, contested, supported] · stability 0.67

1 supported 0.95 The answer concludes that the claim is 'broadly supported by the majority of recent empirical labor economics research' and 'largely true under standard conditions.'
2 contested 0.98 The answer notes that the claim is a 'central subject of debate in modern empirical economics' and a 'nuanced, divided view,' detailing evidence both supporting and opposing the claim.
3 supported 0.95 The answer concludes that the claim is 'largely accurate based on prevailing empirical economics' and reflects a 'broad, though not unanimous, consensus among modern labor economists.'

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.