# What a journal can actually measure

KF04 · Descriptive case report · 2026-10-06

The historical snapshot contains 131 events and 23 known total durations. It describes documentation gaps, not proof of faster or better AI work.

## Question

Which performance claims can a heterogeneous local evidence journal support?

## Method

A descriptive analysis of stored completeness aggregates dated 6 October 2026. The public extract contains only counts, observation date and the source fingerprint. Private event text is not published.

Counts capture whether total duration, input tokens, output tokens, a transfer field and a comparison key were present. Events were not randomised and comparable tasks were not reconstructed after the fact. This historical snapshot is not the current size of the subsequently expanded journal.

## Results

Of 131 events, 23 contained a total duration and 108 did not. This is 17.6% with a documented duration; the denominator is only this dated snapshot.

No events contained measured input or output token values. The newer transfer field was absent too. One event had a comparison key.

This does not imply zero token use. Missing values are unknown. Known durations are neither a random sample nor a controlled comparison of two workflows.

The visible figure shows field completeness only. A future comparison would need tasks, model/tool conditions, time basis, error costs and independent quality acceptance defined before execution.

## What others can put into practice.

Separate missing values from zero. An unmeasured value must not become 0 in a chart.

Record complete total durations with their time basis, including failures and rework.

Define a comparable workload and quality acceptance before the experiment; a result involving several skills does not isolate one skill’s effect.

## Limits

No causal effectiveness study, random sample or measured skill speedup. The fingerprint identifies the historical source state and does not establish external peer review.

## Sources

- journal-snapshot: research-portal-data-basis.json; SHA-256 8300f6829ccbc4d1ebe8cecfca7b0441f854eac21c966124b00f745b13d564b0; https://ki-forschungsportal.pages.dev/data/journal-snapshot.json

Conflict of interest: The operator reports on owned projects. Selection is retrospective; no external peer review or sponsor-directed findings.

https://ki-forschungsportal.pages.dev/en/fallberichte/journal-messgrenzen/