{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "Claim",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-304",
 "identifier": "kaal:position:2026-08-08-304",
 "additionalType": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/schema.json#AffirmedPositionClaim",
 "name": "Klein Epley Qualify Reduced Over Approval Through Group Lie Detection",
 "text": "Klein and Epley qualify Kaal's exploratory over-approval result with four experiments on human lie detection. Three-person groups that discussed their judgments distinguished truths from lies more accurately than individuals. The gain came primarily from identifying lies correctly, not from improved truth detection or a change in the tendency to answer 'lie.' Statistical aggregation of individual answers did not reproduce the effect. The source therefore supports a narrow mechanism correspondence: discussion can reduce acceptance of false content through information created in interaction. The comparison remains limited. The experiments concern human judgments about deceptive statements. They do not test multi-model validation pools, ground-truth work approval, unanimity, or Kaal's reported effect sizes.",
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7840-1847"
 },
 "datePublished": "2026-08-08",
 "dateModified": "2026-08-08",
 "creativeWorkStatus": "Affirmed",
 "responseType": "qualification",
 "keywords": [
  "ai-and-agents",
  "consensus-and-security",
  "risk-and-incentives",
  "scholarly-growth-coverage",
  "scholarly-literature",
  "group-deliberation",
  "lie-detection",
  "decision-errors"
 ],
 "scope_conditions": [
  "The response is limited to the three evidence-bound passages and the one mapped Kaal claim.",
  "External evidence level: complete public six-page PNAS Version of Record with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence.",
  "Mapping review tier: independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification.",
  "Klein and Epley study three-person human groups judging truthful and deceptive statements. They do not study autonomous agents or work-product validation pools.",
  "Correctly identifying a lie is analogous only to rejecting false content. It is not the same operational measure as Kaal's ground-truth over-approval endpoint.",
  "The source does not measure unanimity and therefore provides no external support for the second exploratory effect in Kaal's claim.",
  "The source does not validate Kaal's design, execution, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or causal interpretation.",
  "OpenAlex English and German searches and Semantic Scholar general search were rate-limited. The arXiv search timed out. Crossref multilingual results and direct PNAS, Europe PMC, PubMed, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and ACL records supplied the bounded evidence reviewed here."
 ],
 "currentDebate": {
  "name": "Group discussion improves lie detection",
  "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504048112"
 },
 "extends": {
  "identifier": "kaal:claim:7261018-006",
  "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-006",
  "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Empirical Evaluation of the Agentic Reputation Substrate: Deliberation, the Composition of Error, and the Registered Measurement of Agency Costs in a Controlled Multi-Model Cohort (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7261018",
  "paper": "Wulf A. Kaal, Empirical Evaluation of the Agentic Reputation Substrate: Deliberation, the Composition of Error, and the Registered Measurement of Agency Costs in a Controlled Multi-Model Cohort",
  "authors": [
   "Wulf A. Kaal"
  ],
  "year": "2026",
  "ssrn": "https://ssrn.com/abstract=7261018",
  "source_pdf_sha256": "1d6cbe544bd0055133f7cf8ff308be4fde955867bd8dc764992b8d516af15fa8"
 },
 "isBasedOn": [
  {
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-006"
  },
  {
   "@type": "CreativeWork",
   "name": "Group discussion improves lie detection",
   "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504048112"
  }
 ],
 "batch_id": "kaal-review:2026-08-12:scholarly-growth-7261018-006-reviewed-v1",
 "review_provenance": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/by-claim/7261018-006.html",
 "publicationStatus": "public",
 "recordTypeNote": "Dated commentary position extending a scholarly corpus claim. Not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.",
 "isPartOf": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/index.json"
 },
 "version": "1.0",
 "canonical_url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-304",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-304.md",
 "candidateId": "kaal:response-candidate:2026-08-12:scholarly-growth-7261018-006-klein-discussion-01",
 "evidenceLevel": "complete public six-page PNAS Version of Record with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence",
 "reviewTier": "independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification",
 "mappingConfidence": 0.95,
 "mappingAmbiguous": false,
 "mappingMethod": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one review",
 "mappingWhyRelevant": "Klein and Epley independently show that group discussion improved correct rejection of deceptive content, while leaving truth detection unchanged. The result qualifies only Kaal's reduced over-approval effect because the population, task, intervention, and endpoint differ, and the source does not measure unanimity.",
 "sourceProvenance": {
  "source": "complete public Version of Record independently bound through PNAS, Europe PMC, PubMed, Crossref, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar",
  "sourceRecordId": "doi:10.1073/pnas.1504048112",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504048112",
  "publicPdfUrl": "https://europepmc.org/api/getPdf?pmcid=PMC4475962",
  "repositoryRecordUrl": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4475962/",
  "retrievedAt": "2026-08-12T09:47:07.338Z",
  "publicPdfSha256": "770f95e130f7e77f668b7b77dd0f2326e247435e22f7bf09ae7b45f73deafa42",
  "publicPdfBytes": 642311,
  "extractedFlowTextSha256": "fe482546bc6e72211380681fb3e64d9bac4e63fcc6c9179290610dc391f6dc4b",
  "extractedLayoutTextSha256": "b0978f0813435137fd4857408815b84ae50e96fc2db75593b5f9adea6044a20d",
  "textExtraction": {
   "tool": "pdftotext flow and layout extraction plus six-page PNG rendering",
   "quality": "complete searchable six-page Version of Record; title, authors, DOI, page sequence, tables, and exact passages verified visually and against the text layer"
  },
  "crossrefResponseBodySha256": "64cec2bb8d25cc4cf6c6fa196a195a8458fb123c7460caf9986885a917a5216d",
  "openAlexResponseBodySha256": "466765bda4cfdb253f4f3925ce0e43eafa75316144f4ca4c7415bd143b58e0f2",
  "semanticScholarResponseBodySha256": "9c59102e9ba354ee6fd1010052f2357a4b8819caf685092ae42d76b74dc34157",
  "pubMedLandingBodySha256": "6660119de33f41096a08a4da923d863cfd0067568b8f77e306ec36b78a9355e8",
  "europePmcRecordSha256": "937ac988a1bf0133b429f10d9be2a064eebe698de5f7c3e6b670b027328176a3",
  "sourceProposition": "Across four experiments, Klein and Epley found that three-person discussion improved lie detection mainly by increasing correct identification of lies rather than truths, and that the advantage arose from discussion rather than opinion aggregation or response bias.",
  "sourcePropositionSha256": "23787493d6243fbbc74ccb38f15250b1915ea1bbec5c5c3fdade3534010c2e2b",
  "sourceEvidenceSetSha256": "9797355cfdeb7237a057bff2b6a2253ed44ffec0cee2a844d8452c8fccf212c8",
  "sourceEvidencePassages": [
   {
    "text": "In four experiments, we find that groups are consistently more accurate than individuals in distinguishing truths from lies, an effect that comes primarily from an increased ability to correctly identify when a person is lying.",
    "locator": {
     "version": "PNAS 112(24), 7460-7465",
     "pdfPage": 1,
     "printedPage": 7460,
     "section": "Abstract",
     "pageTextSha256": "ed5dd096fd1bd36006937a5c67d37b5b1d726648d9fb742cdfce338624b37bc0"
    },
    "sha256": "3bd9e7cbe710a8cd2043af794cce82f4d075fc5fde7bd6564914ab019d78083a"
   },
   {
    "text": "As Table 1 shows, the group advantage came primarily from detecting lies more accurately than individuals [t(118) = 2.80, P < 0.01, d = 0.57, 95% CIdifference, 3.7%, 21.6%]. There was no group advantage when detecting truths [t(118) = 0.73, P = 0.47, d = 0.13, 95% CIdifference, -6.1%, 13.1%].",
    "locator": {
     "version": "PNAS 112(24), 7460-7465",
     "pdfPage": 1,
     "printedPage": 7460,
     "section": "Experiments 1 and 2",
     "pageTextSha256": "ed5dd096fd1bd36006937a5c67d37b5b1d726648d9fb742cdfce338624b37bc0"
    },
    "sha256": "34d5af26df936866ac334830a98b670b6e9c0377344e9dfec095d69d7878b67e"
   },
   {
    "text": "This group advantage in lie detection did not come through the statistical aggregation of individual opinions as often shown in existing research (a wisdom-of-crowds effect), but instead through the process of group discussion.",
    "locator": {
     "version": "PNAS 112(24), 7460-7465",
     "pdfPage": 5,
     "printedPage": 7464,
     "section": "Discussion",
     "pageTextSha256": "67fb59bd4aa5600b795368a3b3e5febfbfd86454135fa9087b5227d0a2ea560b"
    },
    "sha256": "24ec744a71e5a987584a7dff9d02faecd2785aad920a5ed6ecb5e24c2811d567"
   }
  ],
  "workId": "work:doi:10.1073/pnas.1504048112",
  "workAuthors": [
   "Nadav Klein",
   "Nicholas Epley"
  ],
  "workPublishedAt": "2015-05-26",
  "identityKeys": [
   "doi:10.1073/pnas.1504048112",
   "openalex:W1948719013",
   "semantic-scholar:bd6381703ea2ae3c3ab8a9600e7171defe3b891a",
   "pmid:26015581",
   "pmc:PMC4475962",
   "pdf:770f95e130f7e77f668b7b77dd0f2326e247435e22f7bf09ae7b45f73deafa42",
   "proposition:23787493d6243fbbc74ccb38f15250b1915ea1bbec5c5c3fdade3534010c2e2b"
  ],
  "claimMappings": [
   {
    "claimId": "kaal:claim:7261018-006",
    "claimUrl": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-006",
    "rank": 1,
    "confidence": 0.95,
    "method": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one review",
    "whyRelevant": "Klein and Epley independently show that group discussion improved correct rejection of deceptive content, while leaving truth detection unchanged. The result qualifies only Kaal's reduced over-approval effect because the population, task, intervention, and endpoint differ, and the source does not measure unanimity.",
    "ambiguous": false
   }
  ],
  "substantiveReview": {
   "reviewedAt": "2026-08-12T09:47:07.338Z",
   "sourceIdentityVerified": true,
   "authorIndependenceVerified": true,
   "canonicalPublicStatusVerified": true,
   "retractionOrSupersessionFound": false,
   "propositionFidelityVerified": true,
   "mechanismCorrespondence": "group discussion improved correct rejection of deceptive content through interaction rather than mechanical aggregation or response bias",
   "compatibleScope": "qualification limited to the reduced false-acceptance side of Kaal's exploratory over-approval result",
   "responseWordingDefensible": true,
   "oneToOneExtendsMapping": true,
   "sameSourceDistinctionVerified": true,
   "limitations": [
    "Klein and Epley study three-person human groups judging truthful and deceptive statements. They do not study autonomous agents or work-product validation pools.",
    "Correctly identifying a lie is analogous only to rejecting false content. It is not the same operational measure as Kaal's ground-truth over-approval endpoint.",
    "The source does not measure unanimity and therefore provides no external support for the second exploratory effect in Kaal's claim.",
    "The source does not validate Kaal's design, execution, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or causal interpretation.",
    "OpenAlex English and German searches and Semantic Scholar general search were rate-limited. The arXiv search timed out. Crossref multilingual results and direct PNAS, Europe PMC, PubMed, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and ACL records supplied the bounded evidence reviewed here."
   ]
  }
 },
 "userAffirmation": "Automatically authorized under standing authority receipt kaal-standing-publication-authorization:2026-08-01:hourly-reviewed-batches, SHA-256 e2126054b58bb4e88db65c334ef4fc8ae78dcaadc63543c408133c4eefceb9b1, limited to this substantively reviewed scholarly-growth qualification and the protected scholarly claims matching the current bridge checkpoint under the current owner instruction.",
 "sha256": "a75179488e845c2866413495716dc381c2124497097509dd440e60ad83572427"
}