Tested against frontier models.Here’s the evidence.
Benchmarks, case law, and the documented cost of single-model confidence. Everything on this page is verifiable.
0.0%
Hallucination resistance
0%
Fewer hallucinations than Opus
0
Misinformation samples tested
0.0K+
Total adversarial samples
Why Multi-Model Matters
Competing intelligences. Competing conclusions. One defensible record.
In M&A, investment committee prep, and litigation strategy, the answer that wins is the one that survived pushback. Delibera runs the pushback internally — before the associate, the MD, the IC partner, or opposing counsel has a chance.
Three independent models. Three analytical mandates. Mandatory dissent. A synthesis that earns the conclusion instead of defaulting to it.
Benchmark Deep Dive
Tested against frontier models. The data.
Phare Hallucination Benchmark (n=350 subset of 791 adversarial misinformation samples) and proprietary adversarial suite (1,141+ total samples) across frontier models. Delibera is the only system tested that expresses uncertainty — 26% of challenging cases.
n = 350
Phare Hallucination Benchmark
Higher is better. Resistance score.
n = 791
Adversarial Misinformation
Lower is better. Hallucination rate.
n = 281
Uncertainty Expression
Only AI tested that says 'I don't know'.
What the numbers mean for your next deal
A 41% reduction in hallucination rate isn’t abstract. At typical EBITDA multiples of 4–8x, catching a single $50,000 quality-of-earnings error that would otherwise propagate through the valuation saves $200,000–$400,000 in deal mispricing. For a mid-market PE firm doing 5–10 deals annually, the ROI case for Delibera is one caught error.
Case Law · What Happens Without This
A full ledger of documented AI-hallucination sanctions.
Every one of these started the same way: a professional trusted a single-model AI output without independent verification. The pattern is consistent — and it’s accelerating.
Mata v. Avianca
S.D.N.Y.
The origin story. Six fabricated ChatGPT cases. Global press; named in nearly every federal standing order since.
Brigandi Sanctions
S.D. Cal.
Costliest single-attorney AI sanction to date. 23 fabricated citations and 8 false quotations across three filings.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
D. Or.
Split $80K/$15K/$14K across two attorneys. 15 nonexistent cases plus a cover-up attempt. Magistrate called it 'a notorious outlier.'
Whiting v. City of Athens
6th Cir.
First major federal appellate-level AI sanction. Two attorneys at $15K each plus full opposing-party fees on appeal.
Wadsworth v. Walmart
D. Wyo.
Morgan & Morgan's in-house AI tool fabricated eight citations. Lead attorney's pro hac vice admission revoked; two supervising attorneys fined.
Coomer v. Lindell
D. Colo.
MyPillow CEO defamation suit. ~30 defective citations across Copilot, Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, and others. NPR, Bloomberg, AP coverage.
Iovino v. M. Stapleton Assocs.
W.D. Va.
Whistleblower retaliation case dismissed in full after plaintiff's counsel cited fictitious cases and fabricated quotations.
Park v. Kim
2d Cir.
Federal appellate brief contained nonexistent case law. Counsel referred to grievance committee for disciplinary action.
Federal Standing Orders
Multiple circuits
Standing orders in dozens of federal districts now require attorneys to certify AI use and verify every citation.
Q1 2026 Sanctions Surge
US federal courts
Courts imposed $145K+ in AI-hallucination sanctions in Q1 2026 alone. The pace is accelerating, not stabilizing.
Your reputation is on the line.
The audit trail is our job.
Make the case once. Verify it three ways. Ship with the audit trail.
Request a Briefing