The WikiEDU project has some thoughts on this. They found Pangram good enough to detect LLM usage while teaching editors to make their first Wikipedia edits, at least enough to intervene and nudge the student. They didn’t use it punatively or expect authoritative results however. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2026/01/29/generative-ai-and-wikipe...

They found that Pangram suffers from false positives in non-prose contexts like bibliographies, outlines, formatting, etc. The article does not touch on Pangram’s false negatives.

I personally think it’s an intractable problem, but I do feel pangram gives some useful signal, albeit not reliably.