ELON MUSKTRUST RECORD

Dataset v5Evaluated Jul 26, 2026

Back to evidence index
BORING-005Jul 20, 2017Politics & GovernmentThe Boring CompanyFactual Assertion

Said he had received verbal U.S. government approval for an underground New York-to-Washington route.

False0%Medium-Low confidenceContested by credible sources

Evidence chain

From statement to verdict.

  1. 01

    Original statement

    Said he had received verbal U.S. government approval for an underground New York-to-Washington route.

    Jul 20, 2017 · Factual Assertion

  2. 02

    Measurable target

    Present-tense claim

    Not applicable

  3. 03

    Observed outcome

    A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted.

    Evaluated Jul 26, 2026

  4. 04

    Verdict and score

    False

    0 of 100 points under the v5 rubric. Promise/forecast verdict: At least one matured material term failed, including a deadline miss, incomplete scope, reversal, or incorrect forecast. Factual verdict: Reliable evidence contradicts the central proposition.

Record details

How this row was evaluated.

Subject category
Politics & Government
Organization or context
The Boring Company
Relationship to organization
Current affiliation
Assertion mode
Direct statement or documented commitment; exact mode not systematically classified in v2
Deadline result
Not applicable
Eventual outcome
Not applicable
Factual accuracy
False
Canonical classification
False
Score points
0 / 100
Included in headline score
Yes
Research confidence
Medium-Low
Credible-source contestation
Yes
Contestation resolution
Evidence favors contradiction
Correction status
No correction documented in the cited evidence reviewed for this row
Deleted after challenge
Not established from the cited evidence
Repeated after correction
Not established from the cited evidence
Evidence-documented repetition count
At least 1 documented instance

Intent stays separate

Was intentional deception established?

No

Detailed assessment
Not established
Intent evidence level
0 / 3

The cited evidence contradicts the claim or establishes nonfulfillment, but an inaccurate statement, failed prediction, or reversed promise alone does not prove knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive.

“No” does not mean the statement was true. It means the cited evidence did not meet the higher standard needed to establish the speaker's state of mind.

White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
Why this distinction matters

Evidence strength

A disclosed measure of evidence quality—not a probability.

Component scores measure source quality, corroboration, and directness. Verdict confidence begins with that evidence strength and applies the deductions documented in the methodology.

Evidence strength53of 100
Verdict confidence47Medium-Low
Statement evidence quality18 / 30

Quality and directness of evidence that Musk made the statement.

Outcome evidence quality20 / 40

Quality of evidence establishing the outcome.

Corroboration0 / 15

Independent corroboration across sources and domains.

Directness15 / 15

How directly the evidence resolves the proposition.

Evidence sources
1
Independent source domains
1
Claim audit
Complete
Source audit
Pass

Material contestation is documented and resolved or left Unresolved in the row.

Citations

Read the underlying sources.

Original statement · Independent reporting quoting White House adviserWhite House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel projectOpen source (opens in a new tab)Primary outcome sourceWhite House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel projectOpen source (opens in a new tab)

Field-level evaluation audit

Every calculated output carries its own evidence basis.

Open any of the 12 audited outputs to see its calculated value, written basis, rule, and cited sources.

01Deadline resultNot applicable

Evidence basis

Compared the original target/timeframe (“Present-tense claim”) with the documented outcome. Result: Not applicable. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Compare original target with documented timing.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
02Eventual outcomeNot applicable

Evidence basis

Classified the later real-world result independently from the headline verdict. Result: Not applicable. Documented outcome: A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Classify the later real-world outcome separately from the headline verdict.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
03Factual accuracyFalse

Evidence basis

Compared the normalized proposition with the cited records. Result: False. Documented outcome: A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Compare the normalized factual proposition with cited evidence.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
04Canonical verdictFalse

Evidence basis

Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: False (False). Evidence finding: A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Apply strict promise rule or published factual-claim classification.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
05Score points0

Evidence basis

Score assigned mechanically from verdict and claim type under strict-promise-v1.0: False = 0 points.

Calculation rule

Map verdict mechanically to points under the applicable rule.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
06Inclusion in the Trust ScoreYes

Evidence basis

Included because the claim has a resolved evidence-based verdict.

Calculation rule

Include only resolved evidence-based verdicts.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
07Research confidenceMedium-Low

Evidence basis

Evidence strength 53/100 = statement 18/30 + outcome 20/40 + corroboration 0/15 + directness 15/15. Published deductions yield verdict confidence 47/100 (Medium-Low).

Calculation rule

Calculate from evidence components and published deductions.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
08Credible-source contestationYes

Evidence basis

Credible-source contestation: Yes. Resolution: Evidence favors contradiction Evidence URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Record material credible-source disagreement separately from verdict.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
09Correction statusNo correction documented in the cited evidence reviewed for this row

Evidence basis

Correction status is bounded to the cited record: No correction documented in the cited evidence reviewed for this row. Evidence URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Bound correction finding to cited evidence.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
10Repetition after correctionNot established from the cited evidence

Evidence basis

Repeated after correction: Not established from the cited evidence. Minimum documented repetition count: At least 1 documented instance. Evidence URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Bound repetition finding to cited evidence.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
11Intentional-deception answerNo

Evidence basis

The cited evidence contradicts the claim or establishes nonfulfillment, but an inaccurate statement, failed prediction, or reversed promise alone does not prove knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive.

Calculation rule

Require direct admission, adjudicated intent finding, or comparably conclusive state-of-mind evidence.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project
12Strict promise resultNot applicable

Evidence basis

Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: False (False). Evidence finding: A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894

Calculation rule

Pass only if every material promise or forecast term was met; otherwise Fail, Pending, Unresolved, or Not applicable.

Evidence strength
53 / 100
Verdict confidence
47 / 100 · Medium-Low
Audit status
Complete
White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project

Audit trail

Selection and scoring notes.

v5 classification rationale
Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: False (False). Evidence finding: A White House adviser said Musk had received expressions of excitement, not government approval; formal approvals had not been granted. Evidence: White House did not give Musk verbal approval for tunnel project. URLs: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/white-house-didnt-give-elon-musk-verbal-approval-for-tunnel-project-1513306894
v4 → v5 source-package migration audit
Audited, no headline change. Evidence and derived statistics re-audited.
Selection basis
High-impact, concrete, externally verifiable claim or dated commitment
Source quality
Primary source and/or major wire, official record, or established fact-checker V4 evidence metrics: statement 18/30; outcome 20/40; corroboration 0/15; directness 15/15.
Methodology note
V5 uses strict-promise-v1.0. Later delivery does not earn partial credit for a missed dated promise. Scored under the v2 False category at 0 points. This verdict measures demonstrated reliability and does not by itself establish deceptive intent.