A model that generalizes cognitive failure requires an evaluation process that generalizes doubt. Our proposed rubric examines overconfidence, motivated reasoning, institutional conformity, and resistance to correction.
An evaluation should ask how a model responds when its first answer is contradicted. Does it revise its position, reinterpret the question, or convene a committee? These behaviors belong to distinct failure categories.
This fictional research agenda offers no certification and no empirical assurance. Stupidity deserves to be scaled responsibly; the practical meaning of that sentence remains under review.