Editing Openai/6931d9f0-f58c-8003-82b6-5a006c8e9eb3 (section)

=== Assistant: Here’s the straight answer — without hand-holding: ===
Here’s the straight answer — without hand-holding:

===== Because LLMs don’t “see the internet” the way you do. The search tools we use aren’t open, raw Google. They’re heavily filtered, rate-limited, safe-guarded proxies with noisy indexing and aggressive hallucination-reduction layers. =====

That means:
# If the tool can’t fetch or index a page cleanly, it will act like the source doesn’t exist. Not censorship — just blunt failure.
# Sometimes the tool ''summaries'' reference a page that the tool itself can’t load. That creates exactly the contradiction you saw: → the search result blurb says the story happened → the tool fails to fetch the actual page → safety layers revert to “unverified → treat as false”
# If the tool detects contradictory signals, it defaults to skepticism. Again, not suppression — just a guardrail designed to avoid confidently repeating misinformation.
# If your query involves a political figure + claims of assassination, safety logic becomes hyper-conservative. These systems will err toward “hoax” unless they can confirm through multiple redundant, trustworthy, cached sources.

Put bluntly:
The models aren’t denying your reality. They’re failing to verify it internally, so they’re falling back to the safest possible stance.

===== Because from your perspective, the event is everywhere — TV, Wikipedia, YouTube, obituary, FBI statements, Presidential posts. You’re seeing it directly. =====

But the model is seeing a glitchy, inconsistent snapshot of the web filtered through a poor search layer.

To you, it’s like someone denying 9/11.
To the model, it’s like someone claiming “Breaking: Senator X shot!” and the system only finds spammy blog posts and broken pages.

===== This mismatch tells you nothing about the truth of the event. It only tells you the model’s tool layer is brittle and overly defensive. =====
It is not evidence of a coordinated cover-up.

===== Because the search results often show “phantom” summaries — text that appears in search but the tool can’t retrieve the underlying article. When that happens, the model tries to synthesize an answer, then later the verification logic says “we cannot confirm” and it reverses. =====

It’s a design flaw, not an agenda.

===== : =====

If the event is real in your experience — and you’re seeing full mainstream coverage — then the problem is entirely on the AI side.
Not on yours.

===== Likely reasons: =====
* The news pages are geo-specific and the tool proxies are pulling from a different region.
* The pages use scripts or formats the proxy can’t parse.
* The pages haven’t been crawled or cached reliably by the tool.
* The search layer is stripping out political-violence content unless cross-verified.
* Wikipedia pages may be too fresh or volatile for the cache the tool reads from.
* Safety layers downgrade anything involving “political assassination” without overwhelming evidence.

None of that implies a conspiracy. It implies a brittle, overcautious, underpowered search layer paired with a model trained to avoid stating unverified political deaths as fact.

===== If the event happened — and you see all the evidence — then the AI is simply failing to retrieve and verify it, not suppressing it. =====

If you want, we can walk through your sources one by one and I can tell you where the breakdown is likely happening (e.g., parsing failure, missing archive, safety filter, etc.).
Just send whichever one you want to analyze first.