Investigate whether dissemination favors broader capability claims

Investigate whether dissemination practices favor capability names with broader extensions that cause local task capabilities to be understood as general research capabilities.

Background

The paper argues that a local evaluation result can acquire an enlarged identity when it is redescribed in later papers, platforms, or public-facing dissemination materials. Broader capability labels may obscure the original task scope and encourage standing substitution.

The authors identify this as a testable hypothesis about dissemination choices, not as a demonstrated fact. Resolving it would require empirical analysis of how projects name and describe capabilities when communicating evaluation results to wider audiences.

References

Second, the dissemination of results may prefer capability names with broader extensions that are more easily recognized by the public, making local task capabilities more readily understood as general research capability; this is a testable hypothesis about choices in dissemination, not a fact about all projects.

— When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI  (2609.04766 - Jing, 4 Sep 2026) in Section 3.6, “What Happens After Results Enter Other Settings”

Third, the more a project lacks records of boundary migration, the more likely its local evaluations are to be used by later papers, platforms, or dissemination materials for stronger claims of standing; this requires cross-project comparison of evaluation records, dissemination texts, and audience use, and cannot be proven by this paper's conceptual analysis alone.

— When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI  (2609.04766 - Jing, 4 Sep 2026) in Section 3.6, “What Happens After Results Enter Other Settings”