Asserted that Reuters was lying when it reported Tesla had canceled the all-new $25,000 EV project.
Evidence chain
From statement to verdict.
- 01
Original statement
Asserted that Reuters was lying when it reported Tesla had canceled the all-new $25,000 EV project.
Apr 5, 2024 · Factual Assertion
- 02
Measurable target
Present-tense claim
Not applicable
- 03
Observed outcome
Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead.
Evaluated Jul 26, 2026
- 04
Verdict and score
Unsupported
25 of 100 points under the v5 rubric. An affirmative claim lacks adequate credible support but is not conclusively disproven.
Record details
How this row was evaluated.
- Subject category
- Business & Technology
- Organization or context
- Tesla
- 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
- Unsupported
- Canonical classification
- Unsupported
- Score points
- 25 / 100
- Included in headline score
- Yes
- Research confidence
- Medium
- Credible-source contestation
- Yes
- Contestation resolution
- Unresolved
- 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
- Suggested but not established
- Intent evidence level
- 2 / 3
Reuters reported that senior Tesla executives knew the low-cost vehicle project had been canceled and questioned Musk after his public denial. This is contemporaneous evidence suggesting knowledge, but no court or admission conclusively establishes intentional deception.
“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 claim”) with the documented outcome. Result: Not applicable. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
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: Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
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 accuracyUnsupported
Evidence basis
Compared the normalized proposition with the cited records. Result: Unsupported. Documented outcome: Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
Calculation rule
Compare the normalized factual proposition with cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
04Canonical verdictUnsupported
Evidence basis
Factual-claim rule: apply the published True, Mostly True, Misleading, Unsupported, False, or Unresolved definition. Applied result: Unsupported (Unsupported). Evidence finding: Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
Calculation rule
Apply strict promise rule or published factual-claim classification.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
05Score points25
Evidence basis
Score assigned mechanically from verdict and claim type under strict-promise-v1.0: Unsupported = 25 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: Unresolved Evidence URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
Calculation rule
Record material credible-source disagreement separately from verdict.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
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.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
Calculation rule
Bound correction finding to cited evidence.
- Evidence strength
- 80 / 100
- Verdict confidence
- 72 / 100 · Medium
- Audit status
- Complete
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.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
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
Reuters reported that senior Tesla executives knew the low-cost vehicle project had been canceled and questioned Musk after his public denial. This is contemporaneous evidence suggesting knowledge, but no court or admission conclusively establishes intentional deception.
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: Unsupported (Unsupported). Evidence finding: Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
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: Unsupported (Unsupported). Evidence finding: Reuters later reported that senior Tesla executives knew Musk had already canceled the project and questioned his public denial; Musk reportedly told them the project remained dead. Evidence: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans; Tesla executives questioned Musk after he denied killing $25,000 EV project. URLs: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-2024-04-05/; https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-executives-questioned-musk-after-he-denied-killing-25000-ev-project-2025-06-02/
- 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 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 v2 Unsupported category at 25 points. This verdict measures demonstrated reliability and does not by itself establish deceptive intent.