What Breaks When Facts Become Stories? The Distortions Source-Agreement Metrics Miss When Models Retell Real Events

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where it often matters how confidently a claim is expressed, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve the degree of confidence. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty during transformations intended to preserve meaning. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2x more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4.5 increases certainty in 20% of examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.

AI systems rewrite information constantly: conversations become stored memories, documents become answers. The rewrite can keep a claim while washing away what made it checkable, who said it, how sure they were, when it held. We call that failure factwashing, and release factwash, an open-source write-time gate that catches it deterministically, with named flags and evidence rather than an LLM judge. Building it answers a practical question: when does a cheap check suffice, and when do you need a model? What decides is whether the property has a bounded surface-cue inventory. Explicit negation cues are close to enumerable, so a word list finishes and transfers, reaching 0.91 F1 on untuned text. Hedging and attribution have open-ended realizations, so vocabulary plateaus near half recall, and a one-question LLM witness recovers +17 and +15 points of cue-detection recall at equal precision. Deployed, that witness may only lower a verdict, so it buys precision rather than coverage. We measure cue detection on 105,596 independently annotated sentences. A blind-labelled corpus of memory writes then locates the failure: 55% of bad writes in conversational hearsay, 7% in business email (p < 0.001), so the first deployment question is not which detector to use but whether the failure occurs at all. On unmodified mem0 2.0.7, the gate flags 5 of 8 hedged-hearsay writes.

Language models increasingly answer questions by consulting retrieved documents rather than memory alone, a design now common in search assistants and enterprise knowledge tools. Grounding a model in retrieved text reduces unsupported statements but does not eliminate them, and a reader cannot tell a grounded sentence from an invented one. Most research on this problem stops at detection, yet flagging a faulty answer changes nothing for the person reading it, and little is known about which action should follow. Using RAGTruth, a benchmark whose unsupported passages are annotated by hand, we split each flagged answer into individual factual claims, check each against the retrieved source, and compare leaving the answer untouched with three repair strategies of increasing richness: deleting an unsupported claim, replacing it with source text, and rewriting it. Three language models from different families judge the 916 repaired answers. Every strategy reduces the proportion of answers judged to contain unsupported content, and all three judges agree on the ordering. Deletion achieves the largest reduction while retaining least of the original answer, at 64.3% of the text, whereas rewriting retains 80.1% and reduces least. Repair is not confined to faulty answers: 83.5% of answers annotated clean are edited too. The strategies occupy different points on a grounding preservation trade-off rather than forming a quality ranking, and choosing between them needs evidence about answer usefulness that automatic metrics cannot supply.