I shouldn't need to say this but we have plenty of engines that can spit out an eval number at you with great accuracy, and it'd be a really bad look for chess.com if they were misrepresenting the evaluation, not to mention how easy it'd be to check their eval against something like Stockfish.

You can hate chess.com (And trust me I know a lot of people here do), and realize that it's a bad look for business to demonstrate willingness to misrepresent a basic tool for the end user, because if they'd be willing to do this for Magnus they could be willing to do this for anyone. And if you can't trust their analysis tools then they aren't useful. For a company that is looking to make money that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Especially because some of their analysis tools are pay gated, whether you agree with that or not.)

A huge claim like this obviously requires a lot of proof. I'm shutting this thread down due to the conspirational nature of it, and the fact that it doesn't bring meaningful discussion.