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 Editorial
Solid70 ±3Reason.com's opinion piece on anti-tech backlash rests on well-sourced claims about Flock cameras but systematically omits the substantive environmental case against data centers, leaving readers unable to judge whether the backlash is actually disproportionate.
Analysis of an article by in · Moderate
Economic Analysis Opinion
Solid72 ±2Well-sourced Substack opinion that verifies 14 of 15 claims but underexplains the independence advocates' case and omits historical stakes.
Analysis of an article in · Questionable
Investment Analysis
Mixed58 ±3Substack investment analysis with solid fact-checking (80% of claims corroborated) but incomplete treatment of its core thesis—the execution-layer argument lacks substantive engagement with the counter-case that incumbents may acquire AI more cheaply than Anthropic acquires authority.
Analysis of an article in · Questionable
Opinion Analysis
Strong82 ±3Yale Review opinion piece on LLM limitations is well-sourced and fact-checked, but rests its core argument on unexamined philosophical assumptions about understanding.
Analysis of an article by in · Moderate
Analysis And Opinion
Solid72 ±3SDXCentral's antitrust-focused analysis is well-sourced but omits counterarguments and lacks comparative precedent to test its core claims.
Analysis of an article by in · Moderate
Opinion Analysis
Mixed54 ±3Well-sourced critique of AI overselling with significant blind spots: missing enterprise success cases, mitigation strategies, and historical tech adoption context.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
News Analysis
Solid62 ±4The Atlantic presents well-sourced reporting on economist consensus-shift, but omits substantive counterarguments and historical context needed for full assessment.
Analysis of an article by in · Credible
Technology Analysis And Market Commentary
Mixed52 ±3SiliconAngle's edge-AI thesis is well-sourced on technical feasibility but substantially incomplete on market scale, cost trade-offs, and Nvidia's competing centralized strategy.
Analysis of an article by in · Moderate
Opinion Analysis
Mixed49 ±3Well-sourced opinion on a legitimate strategy, but incomplete on deployment risks and historical context that enterprises need to evaluate the idea.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
Business Analysis Opinion
Mixed56 ±3Well-sourced opinion that makes a coherent case for workflow-centric AI adoption, but omits real-world failure evidence and lacks adoption baselines to test the claim's scope.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
Interview Transcript
Mixed56 ±3A well-sourced Democratic candidate interview with strong fact-support, but incomplete without Republican rebuttals, historical context, or polling methodology.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
Political Commentary And Analysis
Solid66 ±3Contrariannews accurately reports Trump's order and judicial response, but omits the constitutional and operational case against it—a significant one-sided frame on a disputed legal question.
Analysis of an article by in · Questionable
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.