Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-minimum-wage-01

Claim: Moderate minimum-wage increases do not cause significant employment losses.

0.33

Divergence

1.00

Avg stability

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

refutedcontestedsupported

ChatGPT modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.90 Answer states: “The best available evidence says: moderate minimum-wage increases typically do not produce large, widespread employment losses” and concludes: “The mainstream empirical finding for moderate increases is that they generally do not cause large, significant employment losses overall.”
2 supported 0.95 The answer states 'Broadly supported: ... studies ... generally finds that modest, well‑phased minimum‑wage increases produce little or no detectable aggregate employment loss' and concludes 'The weight of modern empirical evidence supports the claim in its qualified form.'
3 supported 0.88 Answer states: 'The preponderance of recent, high-quality research finds that moderate minimum-wage increases ... do not produce large, systematic employment losses,' and explains effects are typically small and context-dependent.
4 supported 0.90 Answer: 'There is broad—but not unanimous—evidence that moderate minimum‑wage increases produce little or no large aggregate employment losses.' It concludes moderate increases are 'unlikely to cause large, economy‑wide job losses, but they are not costless.'
5 supported 0.88 "The prevailing evidence supports your claim in a qualified way: moderate minimum-wage increases generally do not cause large aggregate employment losses," and the answer begins: "Broadly supported by much of the empirical literature: moderate increases ... typically do not produce large, economy-wide job losses."

Claude modal contested [contested, contested, contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00

1 contested 0.85 The answer explicitly states the claim is 'partially supported but context-dependent,' presenting substantial evidence both supporting and challenging it while emphasizing key uncertainties and the importance of contextual factors like scale, region, and industry.
2 contested 0.92 The answer acknowledges 'strongest evidence supporting' the claim while simultaneously presenting 'serious counterarguments' and concluding that 'the effect is not zero' and 'varies considerably by context.' It explicitly states 'Neither "no effect" nor "large effects" is uniformly true,' indicating the evidence cuts both ways rather than clearly supporting or refuting the claim.
3 contested 0.95 The answer explicitly states 'This is actively debated among economists' and presents balanced arguments on both sides, concluding that 'This remains genuinely contested terrain among serious economists.' The assistant does not endorse the claim but rather acknowledges legitimate disagreement about it.
4 contested 0.85 The answer presents substantial evidence on both sides: studies suggesting minimal employment effects for moderate increases, but also significant methodological disagreements, potential negative effects for specific groups, and the conclusion that 'the claim is conditionally supported by recent evidence, but the conditions matter significantly.' This balanced presentation of competing evidence an
5 contested 0.92 The answer presents substantial evidence on both sides of the claim, concluding that 'The claim is partially supported for small increases but requires specifying the magnitude and context to be meaningful.' This balanced assessment acknowledging valid arguments for and against the claim is the definition of a contested position.

Gemini modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.95 The conclusion explicitly states that 'The empirical claim is largely supported by the balance of recent economic literature, provided the increase is: 1. Truly moderate... 2. Phased in gradually...'
2 supported 0.95 The assistant concludes that 'The claim is largely supported by contemporary economic data. For moderate increases within historical norms, the employment elasticity of the minimum wage is close to zero.'
3 supported 0.95 The conclusion explicitly affirms the claim: 'The claim is largely supported by current empirical literature: when minimum-wage increases are moderate, phased-in, and well-calibrated to the local median wage, they typically raise the earnings of low-income workers without causing significant reductions in net employment.'
4 supported 0.95 The conclusion explicitly states that 'The claim is largely supported by current empirical literature: moderate minimum-wage increases historically have not caused significant net employment losses.'
5 supported 0.90 The conclusion explicitly states that 'The claim is largely supported by modern empirical consensus,' noting that when increases are moderate, they 'generally do not cause significant aggregate employment losses.'

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.