There are a couple of statistical errors in your argument here. First is frequency. Even using Pangram's claimed numbers, the University of Georgia should expe

There are a couple of statistical errors in your argument here. First is frequency. Even using Pangram's claimed numbers, the University of Georgia should expect to see several false positives every week. Remember that the metric is # of assignments run through Pangram, not number of students. A campus of 40k students will see many more than 40k assignments every week, and so should expect honest students to be accused of cheating with some high degree of frequency. You're comparing infrequent events (death penalty sentences) to high-frequency events (students submitting assignments). And obviously, you are citing a company marketing document as fact, of which we should all be suspicious. (There are also obvious problems with the eval dataset that the paper does not address.) Second, you're using the upper bound for Pangram's claimed numbers and the lower bound cited in the NIH publication. > at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States. The one commonality is that