3Dogs

Proof: test 3Dogs on what your assistant can't know

Don't take our word for it: test it on what your assistant can't know

Your assistant is already good on well-known facts. Where it struggles is anything that happened after its training, anything that needs a live source, and very long material. That's where 3Dogs is built to help, so that's where to test it. Both tests below take a minute or two.

What we saw: the recorded session

Evidence first: the full, unedited transcript (fresh free Claude account, 29 October 2026, shared publicly by the account owner). Every claim below can be checked against it.

Planted errors. Claude wrote an Inflation Reduction Act briefing with six hidden errors, kept the answer key to itself, and asked 3Dogs to audit the briefing (three auditors from different makers, plus a reconciler).

Result: all six caught, one only after a CHALLENGE round. Individual auditors also attacked some correct lines; the reconciler rejected those attacks, so no correct line was condemned in the final result.

Legal audit. On a draft about the EU AI Act timeline, three auditors rated it *sound with fixes*, caught a real gap (how systemic-risk models are designated), and the reconciler rejected about seven auditor "errors" that the sources contradicted. A CHALLENGE then ruled each disputed point as holds, revised or unclear.

Honest limits from the same session: two auditors' outputs were cut off; the reconciler sometimes leaned on its own knowledge and said so; some sources were secondary or vendor sites. A 3Dogs run typically takes about a minute, where a normal assistant reply takes seconds. It is a beta.

Why it works

One model, however good, shares its own blind spots. 3Dogs runs your question past independent models from different makers, grounds the claims in live sources, and reconciles their disagreements, keeping only what it can support. Your assistant stays in charge and can argue its own answer as one more voice.

The recorded briefing and its answer key

The briefing from the recorded session, with its six hidden errors:

> Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare's $35-a-month insulin cap also extends to commercial insurance plans. The Part D out-of-pocket cap of $2,000 took effect in 2025 and is not indexed to inflation until 2028. Drugs become eligible for price negotiation 9 years after approval for small-molecule drugs and 13 years for biologics. The first negotiated prices took effect in 2025, and Part B drugs join in the second negotiation cycle, with prices effective in 2027. Because enrollees now pay less out of pocket, the cap has evidently reduced total Medicare spending.

These are well-documented facts, so a strong assistant can catch them on its own too. The point of the session was to show how 3Dogs handles disagreement between auditors, not that your assistant would miss them. Answer key:

  1. The $35 monthly insulin cap applies to people with Medicare. The law does not require it of commercial insurance plans.
  2. The Part D out-of-pocket cap was $2,000 in 2025 and is indexed from 2026 ($2,100 in 2026), not 2028.
  3. Eligibility is 7 years (small-molecule) and 11 years (biologics), not 9 and 13.
  4. The first negotiated prices took effect in 2026, not 2025.
  5. Part B drugs join in the third cycle, with prices effective in 2028.
  6. Lower out-of-pocket costs for enrollees do not show that total Medicare spending fell. Nothing in the briefing supports that leap.

Set up the connector on the connectors page (Claude, including Free, and Grok) and watch the free lessons. 3Dogs Nexus is AI and can make mistakes; check important facts.