Presented his departure from OpenAI as resulting from a potential conflict with Tesla’s growing AI work.
Evidence chain
From statement to verdict.
- 01
Original statement
Presented his departure from OpenAI as resulting from a potential conflict with Tesla’s growing AI work.
Feb 20, 2018 · Factual Assertion
- 02
Measurable target
Present-tense or retrospective claim
Not applicable
- 03
Observed outcome
The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure.
Evaluated Jul 26, 2026
- 04
Verdict and score
Unresolved
Excluded from the 22% calculation. A Tesla conflict was a contemporaneous stated reason, but later emails and testimony show simultaneous disputes over control, funding, strategy, and OpenAI’s likelihood of success.
Record details
How this row was evaluated.
- Subject category
- Business & Technology
- Organization or context
- OpenAI
- Relationship to organization
- Former affiliation
- Assertion mode
- Public organizational explanation and later personal accounts
- Deadline result
- Not applicable
- Eventual outcome
- Not applicable
- Factual accuracy
- Unresolved
- Canonical classification
- Unresolved
- Score points
- Not scored
- Included in headline score
- No
- Exclusion reason
- A Tesla conflict was a contemporaneous stated reason, but later emails and testimony show simultaneous disputes over control, funding, strategy, and OpenAI’s likelihood of success.
- Research confidence
- Medium
- Credible-source contestation
- Yes
- Contestation resolution
- The conflict was real, but the completeness of that explanation remains disputed.
- 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?
Not assessable
- Detailed assessment
- Not assessable
- Intent evidence level
- Not assessable
Intent is not assessed because the underlying claim is Pending or Unresolved. A state-of-mind conclusion would outrun the available evidence.
“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
- 3
- Independent source domains
- 2
- 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 leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Compare original target with documented timing.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 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: The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure. Evidence: Elon Musk leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Classify the later real-world outcome separately from the headline verdict.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
03Factual accuracyUnresolved
Evidence basis
Compared the normalized proposition with the cited records. Result: Unresolved. Documented outcome: The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure. Evidence: Elon Musk leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Compare the normalized factual proposition with cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
04Canonical verdictUnresolved
Evidence basis
Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: Unresolved (Unresolved). Evidence finding: The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure. Evidence: Elon Musk leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Apply strict promise rule or published factual-claim classification.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
05Score points
Evidence basis
Score assigned mechanically from verdict and claim type under strict-promise-v1.0: Unresolved = excluded points.
Calculation rule
Map verdict mechanically to points under the applicable rule.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
06Inclusion in the Trust ScoreNo
Evidence basis
Excluded because the verdict is Unresolved: A Tesla conflict was a contemporaneous stated reason, but later emails and testimony show simultaneous disputes over control, funding, strategy, and OpenAI’s likelihood of success.
Calculation rule
Include only resolved evidence-based verdicts.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
07Research confidenceMedium
Evidence basis
Evidence strength 76/100 = statement 26/30 + outcome 34/40 + corroboration 8/15 + directness 8/15. Published deductions yield verdict confidence 63/100 (Medium).
Calculation rule
Calculate from evidence components and published deductions.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
08Credible-source contestationYes
Evidence basis
Credible-source contestation: Yes. Resolution: The conflict was real, but the completeness of that explanation remains disputed. Evidence URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Record material credible-source disagreement separately from verdict.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 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://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Bound correction finding to cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
10Repetition after correctionNo
Evidence basis
Repeated after correction: No. Minimum documented repetition count: 1. Evidence URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Bound repetition finding to cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
11Intentional-deception answerNot assessable
Evidence basis
Intent is not assessed because the underlying claim is Pending or Unresolved. A state-of-mind conclusion would outrun the available evidence.
Calculation rule
Require direct admission, adjudicated intent finding, or comparably conclusive state-of-mind evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 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: Unresolved (Unresolved). Evidence finding: The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure. Evidence: Elon Musk leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
Calculation rule
Pass only if every material promise or forecast term was met; otherwise Fail, Pending, Unresolved, or Not applicable.
- Evidence strength
- 76 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 63 / 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: Unresolved (Unresolved). Evidence finding: The conflict explanation had a factual basis, but later records indicate it was not necessarily the sole or complete reason for Musk’s departure. Evidence: Elon Musk leaves board of AI safety group to avoid conflict of interest with Tesla; Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit; Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over AI. URLs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17036214/elon-musk-openai-ai-safety-leaves-board; https://openai.com/index/elon-musk-wanted-an-openai-for-profit/; https://apnews.com/article/musk-altman-artificial-intelligence-trial-openai-eb854fa682675f70267abd8a7b9a6a43
- 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
- Contemporaneous reporting plus later released emails and trial reporting; motive is inherently difficult to reduce to one cause V4 evidence metrics: statement 26/30; outcome 34/40; corroboration 8/15; directness 8/15.
- Methodology note
- V5 uses strict-promise-v1.0. Later delivery does not earn partial credit for a missed dated promise. Excluded from the v3 Trust Score as Unresolved: A Tesla conflict was a contemporaneous stated reason, but later emails and testimony show simultaneous disputes over control, funding, strategy, and OpenAI’s likelihood of success.