Credibility Analysis System
“D’ye ken?” — broad Scots for “do you know?” It’s the question every analysis answers.
Deyeken extracts every claim from an analysis, gathers supporting and opposing evidence, and produces a transparent credibility score — putting the reader back in control.
~2–11 MINUTES · ~$0.10–$0.85 PER ANALYSIS · PRE-BETA
Opinion Analysis
Mixed59 ±3Well-sourced opinion that credibly documents AI leader overreach, but underexamines whether recent AI breakthroughs genuinely justify cross-domain ambition and conflates poor execution with intellectual arrogance.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
Company Position Statement
Mixed47 ±3Palantir's sovereignty argument rests on verified principles but omits whether the case applies universally or only to defense/regulated sectors, and sidesteps that 'sovereignty' now cuts against Palantir itself in European regulation.
Analysis of an article in · Questionable
Opinion Analysis
Solid75 ±2Reason's critique of the Lancet study is robustly sourced and factually grounded, but omits the authors' published defense of their causal claims and leaves a key arithmetic assumption unexamined.
Analysis of an article by in · Moderate
Opinion Editorial
Mixed53 ±3Meta's opinion piece marshals credible sourcing (87% of claims verified/supported) but argues a one-sided case—it omits substantive AI safety objections and leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Analysis of an article by in · Unreliable
Science News Analysis
Solid79 ±3The Economist reports a credible methodological challenge to a widely-cited 2023 study, though key statistical details about the correction's scope remain unexamined.
Analysis of an article by in · Credible
Investigative News Reporting
Solid73 ±3New York Times investigation is well-sourced and largely fact-checked, but presents surveillance risks without proportioning abuse frequency against billions of annual searches or contextualizing Flock's novelty versus prior ALPR vendors.
Analysis of an article by in · Credible
Opinion Editorial
Solid60 ±3Contrarian News presents well-sourced claims about premium impacts, but omits Trump administration projections showing varied outcomes across enrollees—essential context for assessing the magnitude of harm.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
Opinion Editorial
Mixed53 ±3Meta opinion piece on AI distribution is well-sourced but presents a one-sided case that omits serious safety arguments for centralized development.
Analysis of an article by in · Unreliable
Opinion Editorial
Solid73 ±3The Atlantic's pro-regulation argument rests on well-sourced crime claims but systematically avoids the cost-benefit dispute and enforcement gaps that animate actual policy disagreement.
Analysis of an article by in · Credible
The Approach
Deyeken assesses the credibility of the evidentiary record across three weighted axes — source credibility, evidence alignment, and completeness. It surfaces supporting and opposing evidence so you can judge for yourself.