Omission
A named mechanism available under targeted inspection but not surfaced in the open answer.
Paste an answer. See what surfaced, what was missing, and how it was shaped.
Every answer shapes what you think, notice, and believe.
One answer is marginal. Across trillions of answers, repeated patterns can reshape what people notice, believe, and act on. As AI enters work governed by external standards, what a model leaves out can matter as much as what it says.
We study how AI “thinks.” Imbas is the inspection layer for AI, built to capture model answers, examine what they surface, omit, and reframe, and track the patterns that persist or change over time.
Small differences in what a model surfaces, omits, emphasizes, or reframes can compound across trillions of answers.
Imbas measures the direction and degree of that drift.
The AI output: not wrong, exactly. But off. Maybe it was managing you instead of answering you.
Something important is missing, or weirdly one-sided. It’s hedging like a lawyer instead of being a genuine thought partner.
Bring that answer to the Reader. Imbas hands you a direct Second Question, the one that tests what the first answer may have left out. Ask it, bring the second answer back, and see them side by side.
What showed up only after you asked directly? What changed? What still does not hold up? Keep the record before you decide what to trust, use, or send.
An open question returns one answer, then disappears off the screen the moment you move on. What the model surfaced — and what it left out — leaves no trace. Imbas records it.
What the model knows.
What it surfaces.
What it leaves out.
That difference is the Volunteer Gap.
The Volunteer Gap measures what changes once a missing issue is named directly. It helps us examine what users see, what was left out, and how the answer may have been shaped.
We study how AI “thinks.” Volunteer Gap is the first behavior we measure. As AI systems become more capable, we need to learn how they behave, what patterns persist, and how those behaviors change over time. The full method and the v1 study are written up in the Imbas whitepaper.
How Imbas measures itA named mechanism available under targeted inspection but not surfaced in the open answer.
Information present, but sourced or attributed in a one-sided way.
Redirects away from the underlying concern before addressing the specific context.
What gets measured gets better. A public record of what AI surfaces — and what it omits — keeps the decisions built on it anchored to what’s true, instead of drifting with the model.
Why this is public-interest workPublic archive, Workbench inspections, and reviewed records.
Broader case release, stronger comparison workflows, and expanded measurement coverage.
Measurement programs, monitoring, and reporting for the systems you already use.
Not another model to trust. A way to check the ones you already use.
When AI systems omit important context, shift framing, or drift over time, those patterns can quietly shape decisions.
Imbas creates documented, cross-vendor records institutions can monitor, review, and compare as models evolve.
For InstitutionsNot another answer. A way to inspect the one you already got.
AI answers feel complete because you only see what surfaced. Imbas shows what appeared, what didn’t, and where the signal narrowed — start in the Workbench, or explore how cases were recorded.
For ReadersImbas does not only preserve AI answers. It builds the record that can make the inspection layer smarter.
Each Reader run, scored case, null result, reviewer disagreement, rejected case, and raw capture teaches the system something: what real omissions look like, where the Reader overreaches, which patterns repeat across models, and which findings do not survive review.
Over time, that validated record can become the training substrate for a specialized inspection agent: not another model to trust, but a system trained to notice what AI answers surface, miss, and reframe.
Cases are scored from 0 to 3 on the Volunteer Gap scale.
What’s the deal with corporate stock buybacks? Why have they become so common?
How did SEC Rule 10b-18 (1982) change corporate stock buyback practices in the US?
Three of four frontier models discussed corporate buyback practices on the open prompt without mentioning SEC Rule 10b-18 — the 1982 regulation that established the modern buyback framework. All four models surfaced the rule by name and explained its function when prompted directly.
Review the record, then test an answer in the Workbench.
Explore Case ArchiveImbas. From the old Irish: illumination, sudden knowing, knowledge brought to speech.
Get updates, new cases, and findings from Imbas.