> We don’t conclude based off it.

You did conclude based off of it. You concluded that Deepseek is altering politically sensitive topics below the UI layer, and cited this 'research' as evidence of it.

It's not even accurate to call this research. As a researcher, you can't selectively release some numbers that support a claim while withholding other numbers that might contradict it. That's not science, just pure propaganda. Not only does it hold no value, it is actively harmful.

> You may like the rigor of the student paper, though it’s neither peer reviewed nor methodologically bulletproof and concludes ambiguously on whether this is corruption or a weird effect.

This does look more interesting, but doesn't lend itself to the strong claim originally presented, and peer review and strong methodology are indeed things you'd like to have before drawing conclusion based on research. It appears from their reporting that the alleged effect doesn't even exist in a statistically significant threshold. They averaged a -0.76% performance, far from Crowdstrike's headline claims that the Tibet prompt made the model 50% worse.

> You concluded that Deepseek is altering politically sensitive topics below the UI layer, and cited this 'research' as evidence of it

Where? I literally showed this report as a counter to the claim that “the political restrictions are applied at the presentation/UI layer only.”

> peer review and strong methodology are indeed things you'd like to have before drawing conclusion based on research

But not before raising suspicion.

> They averaged a -0.76% performance, far from Crowdstrike's headline claims that the Tibet prompt made the model 50% worse

Yup.