In basically every case, by the time a claim like that is stated in a paper like that, it's obsolete by the time it's published, and ancient history by the time you use it to try to win an argument.
My point is merely if you are going to make an argument using a source, the source should support your argument. If you say "the accuracy of an llm on task 1 is 90% [1]" and when you go to [1] it says the accuracy of an llm on task 1 is 50%, but some sources say with better prompts you can get to 90%, but when extended to a larger data-set for task 1, performance drops to 70%" then just quoting the highest number is mis-leading.
