Hardware Claims Tracker 21-06-04

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
1	RULES:
2	1	A "claim" is any info about a product that hasn't been officially announced
3	2	If a leaker doesn't post a source, THEY are the source, and they take resp. for the claim. If they report the source, they are not making a claim
4	3	All claims are equally weighted
5	4	Multiple PRODUCTS in a single leak constitute separate claims
6	5	Multiple SPECS in a single leak consitute a single claim
7	6	If any spec is wrong in a multi-spec leak, the entire claim is wrong
8	7	A claim is wrong if the spec is more than +/- 10% * [# years prior to official announcement]
9	8	A claim that is corrected later is still a claim. The correcting statement is a new claim
10	9	Adding context to a previously made claim counts as a new claim
11	10	Admitted speculation still counts as a claim
12	11	Embellishing on a sourced (or unsourced) claim counts as a new claim
13	12	Qualifying statements ("may, maybe, could, might", etc) are stripped from claims ("The 3090 may be faster than the 6900" becomes "3090 faster than 6900")
14	13	Qualifying statements are also ignored when verifying a claim (i.e. when someone says something "may" happen but they're not sure, and then it doesn't happen, it is still a false statement)
15	14	Claims that are blatantly obvious are ignored ("6800XT will be faster than the 6800") [This avoids stat-padding]
16	15	An unverifiable claim remains "Unverified" unless there is strong evidence to support/contradict the claim and the timeline of the claim is well passed
17	16	Subjective claims will have subjective means of verification ("Navi2x will be AMAZING" = True, "Navi2x RT will be AMAZING" = False, even though valid arguments for the opposite of each could reasonably be made)
18	17	When 'specs change', the leaker is still responsible for initial leak. The updated spec is a new claim [prevents 'cover-all-bases' types of leakers]
19	18	If a leaker directly reinforces a claim (whether their own or someone else's), that counts as a new separate claim. However, simply reporting/retweeting a claim is not reinforcement. Author needs to directly reinforce
20	19	If a leaker mentions a claim but then disagrees with it, that is a claim in itself. (If they don't cite a source for the leak mentioned, they take resp for both sides)
21
22
23						Updated with Corrections from Reddit Comments Jan 7, 2021:
24	Leaker ID	Counted Claims	# Verified	# Correct	% Correct	Counted Claims	# Verified	# Correct	% Correct
25	AdoredTV	559	448	164	36.61%	557	445	165	37.16%
26	SemiAccurate	196	135	104	77.04%	196	135	104	77.04%
27	Kopite7kimi	148	106	70	66.04%	148	106	78	73.58%
28	APISAK	141	134	130	97.01%	141	134	130	97.01%
29	momomo	108	98	96	97.96%	108	98	97	98.98%
30	RGT	106	44	25	56.82%	106	44	25	56.82%
31	Rogame	90	58	40	68.97%	90	57	41	71.93%
32	KittyYuko	86	75	44	58.67%	86	75	45	60.00%
33	Raichu	73	50	45	90.00%	73	50	45	90.00%
34	Davidbepo	58	28	24	85.71%	58	28	23	82.14%
35	PatrickSchur	52	35	30	85.71%	51	25	24	96.00%
36	Notanapplefan1	51	40	19	47.50%	51	40	19	47.50%
37	Harukaze5719	50	47	36	76.60%	50	46	36	78.26%
38	KomachiEnsaka	49	25	24	96.00%	50	32	31	96.88%
39	Leakbench	46	41	39	95.12%	46	41	39	95.12%
40	ExecutableFix	42	33	29	87.88%	42	33	29	87.88%
41	HXL	26	20	14	70.00%	26	20	14	70.00%
42	3dcenter	21	13	5	38.46%	21	12	6	50.00%
43	ZimogoretS	15	11	11	100.00%	15	11	11	100.00%
44	Unikoshardware	12	10	9	90.00%	12	10	9	90.00%
45	BullshitBuster	11	9	7	77.78%	11	9	7	77.78%
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100