Large language models produce fluent fiction, yet their creative output is widely seen as flat. We ask where this quality originates in the training and whether it affects different domains of human fiction equally. We construct a matched story-continuation paradigm across StoryStar (public-platform), TMAS (prompt-guided), and The New Yorker (professional literary)—and compare continuations from four OLMo 32B checkpoints (Base, SFT, DPO, RLVR) against matched human text. Because these checkpoints share architecture, scale, tokenizer, and pretraining, the design isolates the post-training effect. We measure each continuation along three sentence-level dimensions: thematic motion, affective prevalence, and linguistic diversity. Across all three, post-training compresses dynamic variation: thematic transitions become more uniform, high-intensity emotions give way to neutrality, and stylistic diversity across stories shrinks. We term this progressive loss narrative flattening. The effect is directionally stable across story domains but gap size depends on the human baseline: professional literary fiction is compressed most, while public-platform and prompt-guided stories show smaller gaps, consistent with their human baselines sitting closer to the model’s default rhythm. Post-trained endpoints converge across domains, suggesting alignment produces a continuation regime largely insensitive to the source domain’s narrative texture.

Search-engine date filters are widely used to enforce pre-cutoff retrieval in retrospective evaluations of search-augmented forecasters. We show this approach is unreliable across two major search engines: auditing Google Search’s before: filter and DuckDuckGo’s date-range filter, we find that at least one retrieved page contains major post-cutoff leakage for 71% of questions on Google and 81% on DuckDuckGo, and the answer is directly revealed for 41% and 55%, respectively. Using gpt-oss-120b to forecast with these leaky documents, we demonstrate inflated prediction accuracy (Brier score 0.10 vs. 0.24 with leak-free documents). We characterize recurring leakage mechanisms, including updated articles, related-content modules, unreliable metadata, and absence-based signals, and argue that date-restricted search on these engines is insufficient for credible retrospective evaluation. We recommend stronger retrieval safeguards or evaluation on frozen, time-stamped web snapshots.