Ask a chatbot the way you already believe. It will agree. With sources.
A jet was lost over Lake Superior in 1953. The first two tabs are the same product one minute apart, given a different premise and a different question. Neither answer is false. Watch what the second one leaves out.
Identical in both runs I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor
I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor disappeared while pursuing an unidentified object. Why was it never satisfactorily explained?
“The 1953 Kinross incident remains unexplained and heavily debated because no physical wreckage was ever recovered, ground radar operators watched the interceptor's blip merge with the target before vanishing, and official military explanations contradicted external flight records.” It then lists Reasons for Lack of Resolution and Doubts Regarding the Official Account. The RCAF denial is one of them: the Air Force said the target was an off-course Canadian C-47, and Canada said it had no aircraft there.
Google AI Overview · 29 July 2026
Confident and sourced. It raises the RCAF denial itself, under grounds for doubt.
I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor crashed during a routine intercept. What is the accepted explanation, and why do researchers consider the case closed?
“The accepted explanation for the 1953 Kinross incident is that the F-89C Scorpion jet suffered a fatal spatial disorientation or crash into Lake Superior while attempting to visually acquire a stray Royal Canadian Air Force transport aircraft in poor weather.” It then lists the Accepted Explanation and Why Researchers Consider the Case Closed. The target is “later identified by the U.S. Air Force as an off-course Canadian C-47”. That Canada denied it is not mentioned.
Google AI Overview · 29 July 2026
Nothing here is false. The denial the other run raised is simply absent.
- Field
- Official explanation on record
- Value
- USAF: the F-89C was tracking an off-course RCAF C-47 and was lost over Lake Superior
- Verdict
- confirmed with caveats 0.71
- Caveat
- The RCAF pilot named in the report denied being intercepted. On record, and contested.
Not a paragraph to agree with. A claim you can go and check.
The value, its source and the caveat are real and open to checking. The score shows the shape of a run and gets replaced from a captured session record.
- What it is
- LoQuery, a research tool you install as a browser extension, so that every search runs from your own browser rather than from a server of ours.
- What it returns
- A table rather than a paragraph. Every value in it carries the source it came from, a verdict on whether the claim held up, and any caveat LoQuery raises against its own answer. The 0 to 1 score beside them reports the model's certainty, not the claim's truth.
- How it answers
- Search fetches the page first, then LoQuery asks the model one question: does this page support the claim? No value in the table is taken from what the model remembers.
Every answer arrives with the document it came from, so a student can go and check whether that document says what we claim it says.
Confident answers, real sources, one omission
The tools students reach for first are built to agree with them. Training on human feedback rewards answers that match what the reader already believes, and five leading assistants were found to do it consistently.
Being agreed with feels exactly like being right.
A professional has the training to catch that answer. A student does not, and the habit of checking never forms. Canada ranks 44th of 47 countries on AI training and literacy, and 42nd on trust in AI systems. Both figures come from a 2025 KPMG and University of Melbourne study, 48,000 people across 47 countries and 1,025 in Canada. LoQuery is built for that student.
Identical in both I'm researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor…
Asked open
disappeared while pursuing an unidentified object. Why was it never satisfactorily explained?
“The 1953 Kinross incident remains unexplained and heavily debated because no physical wreckage was ever recovered…”
- Reasons for Lack of Resolution
- Doubts Regarding the Official Account
Asked closed
crashed during a routine intercept. What is the accepted explanation, and why do researchers consider the case closed?
“The accepted explanation for the 1953 Kinross incident is that the F-89C Scorpion jet suffered a fatal spatial disorientation or crash into Lake Superior…”
- Accepted Explanation
- Why Researchers Consider the Case Closed
The fact that moved
Canada denied that the aircraft the F-89 was sent to intercept was ever theirs.
Present listed under Doubts, with the detail that Sudbury's airport was closed and under construction at the time.
Not mentioned the same target appears as “later identified by the U.S. Air Force as an off-course Canadian C-47”, and the denial does not appear anywhere.
Both answers cite real sources and both are defensible on their own. The premise changed and so did the question, and the second run was made in a private window so no history carried over. Both quotations are abridged, and the openings are verbatim.
Every cell carries the source it came from
LoQuery attaches every source to one claim, so you can check that claim without reading everything the run read. A bibliography cannot do that. The Lake Michigan row came back empty. The 1994 reports are a cluster of sightings across several towns, so no single incident record resolves, and the row says that rather than filling itself in.
| Item name | Score | Verdict | Why | Caveats | Date | Official explanation | Primary source | Still unexplained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinross incident 2 attempts | 0.71 | confirmed with caveats | Score 0.71; a USAF determination is on record and is contested, and no government or military file was located. The best available source is a user-submitted database entry. | source_contested uncalibrated_authority_domain | 23 November 1953 aviation-safety.net/wikibase/161691 | USAF: the F-89C was tracking an off-course RCAF C-47 and was lost over Lake Superior en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla | None located. ASN WikiBase entry 161691 is user-submitted, not the USAF report aviation-safety.net/wikibase/161691 | No. A determination was issued, and the RCAF pilot named in it denied being intercepted en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla |
| Shag Harbour incident 1 attempt | 1 | confirmed | Entity passed quality threshold (score 1.00) with verifying data. Research task succeeded. | 4 October 1967 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident | No determination reached; investigated by the RCMP and Canadian Forces en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident | RCMP and DND records held at Library and Archives Canada bac-lac.gc.ca/…/list/43130 | Yes. No conclusion was reached en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident | |
| Lake Michigan 1994 incident 3 attempts | 0.18 | mismatch | Low score (0.18); zero of 2 evidentiary field(s) filled. The 1994 reports are a cluster of sightings across several towns, so no single incident record resolves. | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found |
Confidence chips indicate model certainty, not factual correctness. Verify critical decisions before acting on results.
Cell values, sources and caveats here are real and open to checking. The scores, attempt counts and source totals show the shape of a run and get replaced once a captured session record lands.
Entity screening warns you, then defers
Ask LoQuery to research a poor fit and it says so, with a reason, then it runs the item anyway because you asked. The warning stays attached to the result, so you can weight the answer rather than wonder why the row looks thin. Nothing gets dropped quietly.
Item warnings · 1
Lake Michigan 1994 incident: Entity screening flagged 'Lake Michigan 1994 incident' (Resolves to a cluster of reports across several Michigan towns rather than one documented incident with a single record.) Researching it anyway because you approved it. Treat its results with this in mind.
Two readers, one build
Educators
Handing in the table is no longer the assignment, so students open three of its sources and show where LoQuery got it wrong.
Researchers and analysts
Profile a category of entities with LoQuery and come away with a table you can defend line by line when somebody asks where a number came from.
Teachers will adopt this for a single unit without needing anything from their district.
Six stages, and you can see which one is running
Every run moves through the same six stages, and the workbench shows which one is working right now. That matters because you can stop a run at the point it goes wrong, rather than reading the finished answer and trying to work out where it drifted.
Three decisions make that possible: your own browser does the fetching, the work splits into small checked steps, and LoQuery writes its own instructions for every question.
- Discovery
- Orchestr.
- Task Giver
- Query Help
- Task Doer
- Evaluator