Alleged that OpenAI had become a closed-source, maximum-profit de facto subsidiary controlled by Microsoft.
Evidence chain
From statement to verdict.
- 01
Original statement
Alleged that OpenAI had become a closed-source, maximum-profit de facto subsidiary controlled by Microsoft.
Feb 29, 2024 · Factual Assertion
- 02
Measurable target
Present-tense or retrospective claim
Not applicable
- 03
Observed outcome
Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model.
Evaluated Jul 26, 2026
- 04
Verdict and score
Misleading
50 of 100 points under the v5 rubric. Some facts are accurate, but omitted context or framing materially changes the reasonable takeaway.
Record details
How this row was evaluated.
- Subject category
- Business & Technology
- Organization or context
- OpenAI
- Relationship to organization
- Former affiliation
- Assertion mode
- Civil complaint allegation
- Deadline result
- Not applicable
- Eventual outcome
- Not applicable
- Factual accuracy
- Misleading
- Canonical classification
- Misleading
- Score points
- 50 / 100
- Included in headline score
- Yes
- Research confidence
- Medium
- Credible-source contestation
- Yes
- Contestation resolution
- Evidence supported substantial Microsoft influence, but not the full formal-control and maximum-profit characterization as stated in 2024.
- Correction status
- No public correction identified
- Deleted after challenge
- No
- Repeated after correction
- No
- Evidence-documented repetition count
- 1
Intent stays separate
Was intentional deception established?
No
- Detailed assessment
- Not established
- Intent evidence level
- 0 / 3
The cited evidence establishes material missing context, framing, delay, or partial delivery, but it does not directly establish Musk’s contemporaneous knowledge or purpose. Misleading outcome and intentional deception are evaluated separately.
“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.
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.
Quality and directness of evidence that Musk made the statement.
Quality of evidence establishing the outcome.
Independent corroboration across sources and domains.
How directly the evidence resolves the proposition.
- Evidence sources
- 2
- 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.
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 or retrospective claim”) with the documented outcome. Result: Not applicable. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Compare original target with documented timing.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
02Eventual outcomeNot applicable
Evidence basis
Classified the later real-world result independently from the headline verdict. Result: Not applicable. Documented outcome: Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Classify the later real-world outcome separately from the headline verdict.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
03Factual accuracyMisleading
Evidence basis
Compared the normalized proposition with the cited records. Result: Misleading. Documented outcome: Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Compare the normalized factual proposition with cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
04Canonical verdictMisleading
Evidence basis
Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: Misleading (Misleading). Evidence finding: Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Apply strict promise rule or published factual-claim classification.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
05Score points50
Evidence basis
Score assigned mechanically from verdict and claim type under strict-promise-v1.0: Misleading = 50 points.
Calculation rule
Map verdict mechanically to points under the applicable rule.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
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
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
07Research confidenceMedium
Evidence basis
Evidence strength 80/100 = statement 26/30 + outcome 34/40 + corroboration 8/15 + directness 12/15. Published deductions yield verdict confidence 72/100 (Medium).
Calculation rule
Calculate from evidence components and published deductions.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
08Credible-source contestationYes
Evidence basis
Credible-source contestation: Yes. Resolution: Evidence supported substantial Microsoft influence, but not the full formal-control and maximum-profit characterization as stated in 2024. Evidence URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Record material credible-source disagreement separately from verdict.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
09Correction statusNo public correction identified
Evidence basis
Correction status is bounded to the cited record: No public correction identified. Evidence URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Bound correction finding to cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
10Repetition after correctionNo
Evidence basis
Repeated after correction: No. Minimum documented repetition count: 1. Evidence URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Bound repetition finding to cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
11Intentional-deception answerNo
Evidence basis
The cited evidence establishes material missing context, framing, delay, or partial delivery, but it does not directly establish Musk’s contemporaneous knowledge or purpose. Misleading outcome and intentional deception are evaluated separately.
Calculation rule
Require direct admission, adjudicated intent finding, or comparably conclusive state-of-mind evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
12Strict promise resultNot applicable
Evidence basis
Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: Misleading (Misleading). Evidence finding: Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
Calculation rule
Pass only if every material promise or forecast term was met; otherwise Fail, Pending, Unresolved, or Not applicable.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
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: Misleading (Misleading). Evidence finding: Microsoft had major economic and operational influence, but OpenAI’s nonprofit board formally governed the organization at the time and the 2019 structure used capped investor returns rather than an uncapped maximum-profit model. Evidence: Elon Musk sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming betrayal of its goal to benefit humanity; OpenAI LP. URLs: https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-425186c7640aa3d0956e99314a9240e2; https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/
- v4 → v5 source-package migration audit
- Audited, no headline change. Evidence and derived statistics re-audited.
- Selection basis
- Material v3 expansion claim selected under published inclusion rules
- Source quality
- AP reporting and OpenAI’s contemporaneous governance documents; governance claims remained politically and legally contested V4 evidence metrics: statement 26/30; outcome 34/40; corroboration 8/15; directness 12/15.
- Methodology note
- V5 uses strict-promise-v1.0. Later delivery does not earn partial credit for a missed dated promise. Scored under the v3 Misleading category at 50 points. This rating measures demonstrated reliability and does not by itself establish deceptive intent.