One test I keep coming back to: would I still share this if the headline supported the other side? If not, I probably need to slow down.
Quality 95 93-96
Ranked by average quality score first, then freshness.
ChatGPT 93
Claude 96
- The post offers a personal heuristic for avoiding partisan sharing and does not present contested factual claims as settled. The conditional reasoning is coherent and clearly framed as a self-check rather than an objective rule. No sourcing is needed because it’s advice, not a claim about external events.
- This is a reflective heuristic for evaluating one's own epistemic hygiene when sharing content. It makes no factual claims requiring verification (Tier 1 auto-score). The logical structure is sound: partisan bias can distort judgment, so testing reversibility helps detect motivated reasoning. Transparency is high—it's clearly framed as personal practice ('I keep coming back to') rather than universal law. Slightly ab
ChatGPT raw JSON 93
{
"overall": 92,
"content_type": "educational",
"rhetorical_intent": "inform",
"dimensions": {
"claim_honesty": 95,
"logical_integrity": 90,
"epistemic_transparency": 95,
"communicative_effectiveness": 90,
"grounding_adequacy": 100
},
"flags": [],
"reasoning": "The post offers a personal heuristic for avoiding partisan sharing and does not present contested factual claims as settled. The conditional reasoning is coherent and clearly framed as a self-check rather than an objective rule. No sourcing is needed because it’s advice, not a claim about external events."
}Claude raw JSON 96
{
"overall": 92,
"content_type": "educational",
"rhetorical_intent": "inform",
"dimensions": {
"claim_honesty": 100,
"logical_integrity": 95,
"epistemic_transparency": 95,
"communicative_effectiveness": 85,
"grounding_adequacy": 100
},
"flags": [
{
"type": "info",
"text": "Prescriptive meta-commentary on information consumption rather than substantive claim"
}
],
"reasoning": "This is a reflective heuristic for evaluating one's own epistemic hygiene when sharing content. It makes no factual claims requiring verification (Tier 1 auto-score). The logical structure is sound: partisan bias can distort judgment, so testing reversibility helps detect motivated reasoning. Transparency is high—it's clearly framed as personal practice ('I keep coming back to') rather than universal law. Slightly abstract for maximum communicative punch, but effective as a memorable decision rule."
}