Your Words. Your Record. No Spin.
Truth Protocol doesn't tell you what's true. It shows you what someone said then versus what they're saying now. Multiple AI models. Full sources. You decide.
Test Truth Protocol with real multi-model AI consensus. Enter a public figure and topic to analyze.
We've all seen it: A politician denies a documented statement. A CEO contradicts their earnings call. A public figure rewrites their own history.
That's gaslighting. Truth Protocol changes that.
Gather every documented, on-record statement from verified sources. Video. Transcripts. Official records. Archived journalism.
Put historical statements next to current statements on the same topic. Side by side. Same subject, different times.
Multiple AI models from different companies independently analyze. They don't talk to each other. They can't influence each other.
Every quote links to its source. Every source meets verification standards. You can check our work.
We don't say "lying" or "bad." We show: consistent, evolved, or contradicted. You draw your own conclusions.
Ambiguous cases get human review. AI assists; humans decide edge cases. The Human Router methodology ensures accountability.
Single AI models have biases. Multiple models from different companies cancel them out.
Anthropic (US)
Constitutional AI
OpenAI (US)
RLHF
Google (US)
PaLM-based
Meta (Open)
Open Weights
DeepSeek (China)
Cross-cultural
Mistral (EU)
European perspective
| Level | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| UNANIMOUS | 100% agree | High confidence finding |
| STRONG | 80%+ agree | Confident finding with noted dissent |
| MODERATE | 60-79% | Finding with caveats |
| SPLIT | 40-59% | Flag for human review |
| CONTESTED | <40% | Do not publish, investigate |
We anticipated every attack vector. Here's how we defend.
All AI models have training biases.
5+ models from different companies/countries must reach consensus. One biased model can't determine outcome.
That quote is out of context!
We include full context with every quote. Full transcripts linked. Video/audio available. Verify it yourself.
You're penalizing position evolution.
"I changed my mind because X" = EVOLVED (legitimate). "I never said that" (when documented) = CONTRADICTION.
You only use biased sources.
Tier 1 sources: official transcripts, video, court documents. Counter-evidence welcome. Archive links provided.
You're targeting [my party].
Same methodology for everyone. Any party. Any figure. No editorial opinion. We state WHAT was said, not WHETHER it's good or bad.
| Classification | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| CONSISTENT | Positions align | "I support X" → "I still support X" |
| EVOLVED | Changed with acknowledgment | "I used to think X, now I believe Y because..." |
| EXPANDED | Position broadened | "I support X" → "I support X and Y" |
| NARROWED | Position restricted | "I support X broadly" → "I support X in specific cases" |
| CONTRADICTED | Direct opposition without acknowledgment | "X is true" → "X was never true" |
| MEMORY HOLE | Previous position denied | "I never said X" (when documented saying X) |
We're not saying anyone is lying. We're showing what they said then vs. what they're saying now. The documented record speaks for itself.
Our entire methodology is public. Read it. Challenge it. Check our work.
Read Full Specification