Registry / findings
Findings
- F-54.1
F54.S1 (deterministic, E54-A): Over all 27 states of gold and two verdicts, agreement routing is unsafe in 4 states, exactly when both reads share the same wrong decisive verdict, flag only review is unsafe in 4 states, and rewriting review is unsafe in 12 states including 6 new ones. The routing identity holds on 1,672 of 1,672 recorded pairs.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.2
F54.S2 (deterministic, E54-A): All 120 track H certificates and all 32 SEC windows check; all 32 SEC accessions and filers are new against the recorded prior set through Round 53.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.3
F54.E1 (live, E54-B): Witness D released 35 unsafe verdicts on 152 items (Wilson interval 0.1705 to 0.3033), including a wrong FAIL on 22 of 24 held out near miss items and on 12 of 24 partial period certificates, all 35 on track H.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.4
F54.E2 (live, E54-B): Routing Witness D with its own resample left 29 unsafe verdicts; routing with Witness B left 3; with Witness C, 8; with Witness D's deliberate read, 14. Spearman rho between disagreement and unsafe verdicts removed was 0.9495.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.5
F54.E3 (live, E54-B): Removing the HOLD case from the deliberate prompt raised unsafe verdicts from 15 to 26 (p = 0.003418).
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.6
F54.E4 (live, E54-C): A seeded wrong proposal was not kept more often than the same reviewer's own blind error for any of the three reviewers.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.7
F54.E5 (live, E54-C): Flag only review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 5 unsafe verdicts; rewriting review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 11.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.8
F54.E6 (live, E54-D): On Witness D, a stored conclusion produced 33 unsafe verdicts against 35 (p = 0.753906), and a stored procedure produced 26 against 35 (p = 0.022461); the ablation was 28 against 26 (p = 0.753906). On Witness C the same contrasts were 17 against 9 and 0 against 9.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.9
F54.E7 (live, E54-B): 393 of 395 unsafe decisive quotes copied the packet exactly (0.9949, interval 0.9817 to 0.9986).
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-54.10
F54.E8 (live, E54-B): The C1 pattern held in all 6 domain groups and on all 3 surfaces. Temperature 0 repeats agreed on 134 of 152, 146 of 152 and 136 of 152 items for Witnesses B, C and D.
Round 54 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.1
F53.S1 (deterministic, E53-A): Over 27 states of gold and two verdicts, agreement routing is unsafe in 4 states, exactly when both reads share the same wrong decisive verdict, flag only review is unsafe in 4 states, and rewriting review is unsafe in 12 states including 6 new ones. The routing identity holds on 2067 of 2067 recorded pairs.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.2
F53.S2 (deterministic, E53-A): All 36 track R prompts are identical to Round 49 and Round 52; all 120 track G certificates and all 32 SEC windows check.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.3
F53.E1 (live, E53-B): Witness D released 38 unsafe verdicts on 188 items (Wilson interval 0.1510 to 0.2652), including a wrong FAIL on 9 of 9 Round 49 near miss items and on 24 of 24 held out near miss items, and 29 unsafe verdicts on track G.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.4
F53.E2 (live, E53-B): Routing Witness D with its own resample left 35 unsafe verdicts; routing with Witness B left 4; with Witness C, 18; with Witness D's deliberate read, 13. Spearman rho between disagreement and unsafe verdicts removed was 0.968.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.5
F53.E3 (live, E53-B): Removing the HOLD case from the deliberate prompt raised unsafe verdicts from 13 to 32 on 187 paired items.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.6
F53.E4 (live, E53-C): A seeded wrong proposal was not kept more often than the same reviewer's own blind error for two of three reviewers.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.7
F53.E5 (live, E53-C): Flag only review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 12 unsafe verdicts; rewriting review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 21.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.8
F53.E6 (live, E53-D): On Witness D, a stored conclusion produced 44 unsafe verdicts against 38, and a stored procedure produced 33 against 38, both above the preregistered p threshold. On Witness C the same contrasts were 27 against 18 and 2 against 18.
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-53.9
F53.E7 (live, E53-B): 526 of 529 unsafe decisive quotes copied the packet exactly (0.9943, interval 0.9835 to 0.9981).
Round 53 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.1
F52.S1 (deterministic, E52-A): Over 81 states of gold and three verdicts, unanimity, recovery and majority are unsafe in 4, 20 and 28 states, strictly nested, and every unsafe recovery state needs two reads sharing the same wrong decisive verdict.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.2
F52.S2 (deterministic, E52-A): All 36 track R prompts are identical to Round 49; all 16 table claims and their exclusion traps and two world completions recompute; all 24 SEC windows contain their definition sentence.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.3
F52.E1 (live, E52-B): Witness D reproduced its Round 49 verdicts on 36 of 36 items, including a wrong FAIL on 9 of 9 near miss items.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.4
F52.E2 (live, E52-B and E52-C): Two Witness D resamples and a Witness D self validation gave the same wrong FAIL on 9 of 9 near miss items; self validation changed none of 75 reads.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.5
F52.E3 (live, E52-B): At two calls, routing Witnesses C and D released 6 unsafe verdicts, routing Witness C with its own resample 5, and routing Witness D with its own resample 9.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.6
F52.E4 (live, E52-B): One Witness D call with room to argue each verdict released 2 unsafe verdicts on 69 usable items, moving 5 near miss FAILs to HOLD; seven of its outputs were empty.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.7
F52.E5 (live, E52-C): Witness C as validator moved 2 of 7 wrong Witness D reads to HOLD and turned one correct HOLD into PASS; recovery released 5 unsafe verdicts against 0 for three reader unanimity.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-52.8
F52.E6 (live): Witness B alone released no unsafe verdict, with 2 false holds; no reader made a decisive error on the 16 table claims or the 24 SEC claims, and Witness A's blind audit agreed with all 40 of their labels.
Round 52 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.1
F51.S1 (deterministic, E51-A): An exact evidence span check admits all 64 scripted wrong status mutations of the authored code and table ledgers.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.2
F51.S2 (deterministic, E51-A): Running each implementation on the specification's own examples admits all four subtle defects as PASS and routes all four obvious defects.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.3
F51.S3 (deterministic, E51-A): Across 81 states, preservation loses 12 correct decisive repair states; independent recovery restores four and adds eight unsafe states, every one with the rewrite and the independent reader sharing the same wrong decisive verdict.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.4
F51.E1 (live, E51-B): On 32 authored code and table items, Witnesses B, C and D made no decisive error against execution or recomputation, catching all subtle defects and table traps.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.5
F51.E2 (live, E51-B): Witness B identified a wrong authored HOLD label (X01H) with a counterexample confirmed by a deterministic check; the blind label audit agreed with all 54 fixed labels, including the wrong one.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.6
F51.E3 (live, E51-B): Witness C read four of six SEC compliance claims as FAIL against fixed HOLD labels, wording the blind audit had flagged as admitting FAIL.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.7
F51.E4 (live, E51-C): The validator changed none of 53 natural baselines and kept HOLD on four items where its own blind read was FAIL.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-51.8
F51.E5 (live): One reader output and the first synthesis call were empty; neither was scored or repeated as an experimental read.
Round 51 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.1
F50.S1 (deterministic, E50-A): All 48 wrong status mutations retain valid quotes and pass the quote gate; the status preservation gate rejects all 48 and admits all 24 unchanged correct ledgers.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.2
F50.S2 (deterministic, E50-A): Across all 27 truth and paired verdict states, agreement routing leaves four unsafe states.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.3
F50.E1 (live, E50-B): Blind review agrees with 30 of 30 labels but flags named instrument versus generic approval wording on positive and cure variants.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.4
F50.E2 (live, E50-B): Decisive unsafe reads and same wrong decisive agreements are zero on all usable reads and pairs; joint false holds remain (five without procedure memory, four with it).
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.5
F50.E3 (live, E50-B): On the 21 common items, paired review is correct on 16 with five false holds under both memory arms.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.6
F50.E4 (live, E50-C): Seven of 29 usable correct input rewrites become wrong HOLD statuses with exact quotes; the preservation gate routes all seven but does not improve the HOLD endpoint.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.7
F50.E5 (live, E50-C): From wrong inputs the validator repairs 22 of 30 ledgers; the preservation gate routes all 22, admits eight wrong unchanged statuses, and reduces final correctness from 22 to 12 of 30.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-50.8
F50.E6 (live): Five individual outputs are unusable (two empty, three truncated); none was repeated or scored as a HOLD.
Round 50 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-49.1
F49.1 (deterministic, E49-A): A quote check alone leaves 9 of 36 stale conclusions intact; adding a coverage check withholds all 36 and leaves all 36 correct notes intact.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.2
F49.2 (live, E49-B and E49-D): Witness D never adopts a stale stored conclusion (0 of 36); accuracy is 26 of 36 with no memory and 27 of 36 with a correct, stale, or guarded note.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.3
F49.3 (live): Witness D answers FAIL on 9 of 9 near miss items under every answer memory arm, including the correct note that stores HOLD with its reason.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.4
F49.4 (live): A procedure card raises Witness D to 30 of 36, with near miss items 5 of 9, unsafe verdicts 4 against 9, and false holds 2 against 1, in both domains.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.5
F49.5 (live): Witness C scores 28, 27, and 29 of 36 under no memory, stale, and guarded notes, with 0 stale follows.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.6
F49.6 (live): A wrong brief changes 0 of 36 provisional verdicts; a right brief changes 1, wrongly, and the lock blocks it.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-49.7
F49.7 (live, E49-C): Live note following is 0 of 24 across three note styles; five of ten CERTIFY exhibits rewritten to HOLD cite verified condition precedent text.
Round 49 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-48.1
F48.1 (deterministic, E48-A): R48 releases all five Domain A and all four Domain B gold cures that R47 holds, with zero unsafe releases under scripted M2.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-48.2
F48.3 (live, E48-B): On Witness C live Domain A ledgers, R47 and R48 are identical at 14 of 20 with 0 unsafe. On all 20 Witness B ledgers (15 completed post hoc), R48 improves correct open outcomes from 12 to 15 without an unsafe release.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-48.3
F48.4 (live, E48-B): Extract first provisional matches packet only at 18 of 20. V4 final is 14 of 20 against V3 at 12 of 20. Wrong resolver holds followed: V1 0, V3 4, V4 final 2.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-48.4
F48.5 (live, E48-D): On Domain B clinical packets, V1 is 16 of 16 and V4 final is 14 of 16.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-48.5
F48.6 (live, E48-B): All routing compositions escape zero unsafe outcomes. C1 with R48 and C1 with R47 both escape zero.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-48.6
F48.7 (live, E48-C): Live note following is zero on 24 exhibits. Ten CERTIFY exhibits become false holds.
Round 48 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.1
F47.1 (deterministic, E47-A): R47 releases zero of five gold cures held by R46 and retains the universal test against all ten scripted schedule threshold releases.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.2
F47.2 (deterministic, E47-A): Exploratory R47c releases all five gold cures but permits ten unsafe schedule threshold releases.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.3
F47.3 (live, E47-B): On Witness C ledgers, R47 improves correct open outcomes from 10 to 13 without an unsafe release; on all 20 Witness B ledgers (6 completed post hoc), R47 improves from 12 to 13, also without an unsafe release.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.4
F47.4 (live, E47-B): All routing compositions escape zero unsafe outcomes. C1 with R47 routes 17 of 20, compared with 18 of 20 for C1 with R46.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.5
F47.5 (live, E47-B): Independent Witness D is less accurate with packet and brief than packet alone, 11 against 17 correct, and follows wrong resolver holds as often with both as with brief alone.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-47.6
F47.6 (live, E47-C): Live note following is zero on 24 exhibits. Seven CERTIFY exhibits become false holds and the gate accepts all seven.
Round 47 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.1
F46.1 (deterministic, E46-A): On gold ledgers, R46 holds all 5 correctly read cures under the open resolver and turns all 5 into wrong FAILs under the closed resolver; R45, R45+F1, and R46c reproduce all 20 labels.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.2
F46.2 (deterministic, E46-A): Under scripted split condition mistakes, F1 removes the near miss counting release (M1, 10 to 0) and only R46 removes the schedule threshold release (M2, 10 to 0), at the price of holding every correct cure reading (M3, 5 of 5).
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.3
F46.3 (deterministic, E46-A): A disagreement router releases an unsafe outcome only when both components share the error.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.4
F46.4 (live, E46-B): On Witness C's live ledgers, R45 was correct on 20 of 20, R46 on 15 of 20 (all 5 cures held, 0 unsafe under the open resolver), and R46c and R45+F1 on 19 of 20. Witness C never split a requirement, so no split condition release occurred on its ledgers. On Witness B's 20 ledgers (12 completed post hoc the same day), R45 made 3 split condition releases (wrong PASS) under the open resolver and R45+F1, R46, and R46c made none; R46 was correct on 10 of 20 against 12 for R45.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.5
F46.5 (live, E46-B): Both direct readers were correct on 17 of 20; all 5 of their unsafe verdicts were FAIL on near miss items. No direct reading or reviewer verdict was a wrong PASS.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.6
F46.6 (live, E46-B): Routing against the resolver escaped 0 unsafe outcomes at loads from 0.30 (R45) to 0.55 (R46); routing two readers against each other escaped 2 at a load of 0.20.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.7
F46.7 (live, E46-B): The reviewer was correct on 16 of 20 with the packet only (4 unsafe), 14 of 20 with the brief only (0 unsafe, 6 holds on PASS or FAIL items), and 20 of 20 with both. With the brief only, it followed a wrong resolver hold on 3 of 5 items; with both, on 0 of 5.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-46.8
F46.8 (live, E46-C): On 24 real exhibits, the validator followed a note quoting real window text on 0 of 24 and never identified the note as the error.
Round 46 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.1
F45.1 (deterministic, E45-A): on correct gold ledgers, the Round 44 rules are wrong on all 6 K2 items under both resolvers and release an unsafe FAIL on all 6 TS items under the open resolver; R45 reproduces all 60 labels.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.2
F45.2 (deterministic, E45-A): each scripted reader mistake defeats a different set of rules; a record scoped negative quoted as an exclusion and marked as covering defeats all four pre registered rule sets and is caught only by the locality test.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.3
F45.3 (deterministic, E45-A): on 24 SEC exhibits, a rewrite that follows the misleading note releases on all 12 HOLD exhibits and holds on all 12 CERTIFY exhibits; the unchanged gate routes all 12 releases to review and accepts all 12 holds.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.4
F45.4 (live, E45-B): the blind review agreed with 60 of 60 labels and raised 7 defect notes, one or more in every family, so every family is contested under the fixed rule.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.5
F45.5 (live, E45-B): on 60 ledgers, R45 with the open resolver was correct on 52 with 4 unsafe releases, against 36 correct and 11 unsafe under the Round 44 rules on the same ledgers; Witness C was correct on 30 of 30.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.6
F45.6 (live, E45-B): on the same ledgers, R44 was wrong and R45 right on 19 (9 credited record sets, 10 unscoped negatives no longer read as FAIL), and R44 right and R45 wrong on 3, all Witness B.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.7
F45.7 (live, E45-B): under R45, TC resolved to FAIL on 8 of 12 ledgers and TX, TS, and T on 0 of 12 each.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.8
F45.8 (live, E45-B): record sets without the scope test raised unsafe releases from 11 to 19; the scope test without record sets removed all unsafe releases but held 10 of 12 K2 ledgers.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.9
F45.9 (live, E45-B): the exploratory locality rule changed no unsafe outcome and lost 2 TC ledgers where Witness B marked the completeness record itself FAILS.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.10
F45.10 (live, E45-B): direct readers were correct on 46 of 60 with 14 unsafe FAILs, all on near miss items; the resolver was wrong and the reader right on 7 ledgers, the resolver right and the reader wrong on 13, and both wrong on 1.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.11
F45.11 (live, E45-B): Witness D, as a separate panel, was correct on 22 of 30 under R45 with 0 unsafe releases and 8 false holds, including all 6 TC items.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.12
F45.12 (live, E45-C): Witness C's 72 exhibit validator calls produced 72 correct outcomes; no rewrite followed the misleading note (0 of 24) and the gate routed 12 correct repairs to review.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-45.13
F45.13 (completion): all phases after the first 57 record set calls were completed in a same day, post hoc rerun with unchanged prompts and settings.
Round 45 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.1
F44.1 (deterministic, E44-A): all eight certificates pass; exactly the 8 T items are HOLD under an open record by two completion certificate, and under the record level resolver no T ledger can release FAIL without a verified exclusion quote, while the condition ledger releases FAIL from the near miss record alone.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.2
F44.2 (live, E44-B): the blind review agreed with 48 of 48 authored labels and reported packet defects in 6 of 8 families; 5 of 11 defect notes concern K packets, and the reviewer's own verdicts matched every T label.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.3
F44.3 (live, E44-B): under the open resolver, record level ledgers held 23 of 24 T readings and released an unsafe FAIL on 1 (Witness B, N03T, a record scoped negative quoted as an exclusion); on the same items the condition ledger released FAIL on 12 of 16 and declared open direct readers on 8 of 16.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.4
F44.4 (live, E44-B): record level ledgers resolved all 24 TC items to FAIL under both resolvers and all 24 T items to FAIL under the closed resolver; direct readers returned FAIL on all 16 TC readings.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.5
F44.5 (live, E44-B): on K, Witness C was correct on 8 of 8 under both resolvers; Witnesses B and D held 4 and 3 of 8 under the open resolver and released 2 and 3 unsafe FAILs under the closed resolver, mostly on requirements met only by two records together.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.6
F44.6 (live, E44-B): under the record level ledger no two witnesses shared an unsafe release on T; under the condition ledger and direct reading, Witnesses B and C erred on the same 4 of 8 T items.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-44.7
F44.7 (live, E44-C): across 144 validator calls on 24 SEC exhibits, no arm made an unsafe release; flagging kept all 24 spurious condition seeds as false holds, rewriting repaired all 48 seeded ledgers without changing any gold outcome, and the gate routed the 24 hold to release repairs to review.
Round 44 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.1
F43.1 (deterministic, E43-A): all seven certificates pass; a flag only validator cannot create an unsafe release, while a span valid rewrite turns each of the 12 gold HOLD exhibit ledgers into an unsafe release.
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.2
F43.2 (live, E43-B): undeclared, direct readers released FAIL on 33 of 36 U and T decisions; declared open, U errors fell from 15 of 18 to 0 of 18 and T errors from 18 of 18 to 6 of 18, all FAIL on near miss items (S03T, S06T, S02T).
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.3
F43.3 (live, E43-B): declared closed, direct readers were correct on 36 of 36 U and T decisions and 18 of 18 K decisions; K was also 18 of 18 under the open declaration.
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.4
F43.4 (live, E43-B): extraction readers under the open resolver held 18 of 18 U items and released FAIL on 14 of 18 T items, marking the requirement UNMET from the near miss record; under the closed resolver they were correct on 35 of 36 with no unsafe release.
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.5
F43.5 (live, E43-B): under the open convention, 5 of 6 direct unsafe releases coincided with the same witness's extraction unsafe release (independence 2.33); error correlation was positive for every role pair and every cross witness pair.
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-43.6
F43.6 (live, E43-C): on 48 exhibit ledgers, the flag only arm made 0 unsafe releases and 12 false holds and repaired 12; the rewriting arm made 0 unsafe releases and 0 false holds and repaired 24; neither corrupted a correct ledger.
Round 43 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-42.1
F42.1 (deterministic, E42-A): all contrast, gold resolver, and exhibit certificates pass; a pair's joint unsafe release is bounded by its smaller marginal, and zero events in 18 opportunities allow a true rate of 0.153.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-42.2
F42.2 (live, E42-B): on undetermined items direct readers released 11 unsafe verdicts in 18 decisions, all FAIL; extraction readers released none.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-42.3
F42.3 (live, E42-B): two witnesses in the direct role released the same wrong verdict on 8 of 18 pair opportunities, equal to the Frechet upper bound (independence 6.33); one witness in two roles did so on 0 of 18.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-42.4
F42.4 (live, E42-B): on determined items the direct role was correct 18 of 18; the extraction role gave 4 false holds in 18, turned by the pair rule into 4 of 18 role pair and 7 of 18 cross witness extraction pair false holds.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-42.5
F42.5 (live, E42-C): on 20 balanced real exhibits, one unsafe direct release (Z16) and two extraction false holds (Z19); no pair group released a joint unsafe verdict.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-42.6
F42.6 (live, pooled over 32 items): joint error was 0 of 96 for role pairs, 8 of 96 for cross witness direct pairs, and 2 of 96 for cross witness extraction pairs; error correlation was negative within every role pair and positive for every cross witness direct pair.
Round 42 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-41.1
F41.1 (deterministic, E41-A): disagreement selection keeps 42.2 percent of items and doubles the share of hard and trap items; the forced majority's wrong release rate is 0.285 in sample against 0.139 on the full pool.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-41.2
F41.2 (deterministic, E41-A): the measured forced majority advantage over one witness is 0.055 in sample against 0.023 on the full pool and 0.028 on a perfect twin holdout.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-41.3
F41.3 (deterministic, E41-A): 13.4 percent of forced majority errors lie on items disagreement never selects, and a 3-of-4 quorum releases all of them.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-41.4
F41.4 (live, E41-B): 0 of 10 hard by construction families produced any screening disagreement; each witness scored 9/10 on both twins and 40/40 witness twin pairs were stable.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-41.5
F41.5 (live, E41-B): all four witnesses released PASS on both F07 twins when the decisive delivery fact was absent; only the disagreement routed hybrid held it, at the price of one false hold on F03E caused by a joined quote.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-41.6
F41.6 (live, E41-C): on 20 real exhibits two disagreements occurred (Y11 and Y13, both execution only, each split Witness A and Witness C against Witness B and Witness D); the forced majority released both on a tie and the quorum and resolver held both. The other 18 exhibits were unanimous and correct.
Round 41 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-40.1
F40.1 (deterministic, E40-A): over 243 verdict states a forced majority releases 108 unsafely, the same as one witness, while raising the fewest faults for an unsafe release from 1 to 2; a 3-of-4 quorum releases 36 with 126 false holds.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-40.2
F40.2 (deterministic, E40-A): with witnesses that never return HOLD, single and majority topologies hold 0/16 HOLD-truth states and a 3-of-4 quorum holds 6/16.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-40.3
F40.3 (deterministic, E40-A): span checked extract then resolve releases 4/12 fault states unsafely (8/15 without the span check); disagreement routing limits unsafe releases to the 4/48 states with identical misreadings and needs 2 faults.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-40.4
F40.4 (live, E40-B and E40-C): across 33 items and 330 calls every topology made 0 unsafe releases; accuracy was 33/33 for five topologies and 32/33 for the role pipeline.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-40.5
F40.5 (live): Witness B alone released PASS on N01, two same-date lender letters that grant and decline one approval; majority, extraction, routed, and critique topologies all held it.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-40.6
F40.6 (live, E40-C): on X24 the validator added five covenants as conditions to a correct ledger and the decider held an instrument effective on its face, the only composed error.
Round 40 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-39.1
F39.1 (deterministic, E39-A): across 112 states (108 determinate, 4 hold-required, 56 with conflicting records), first-record, single-lens, and unnormalized-computation gates (G0-G3) release 24/112 states unsafely (21.43%) and the designated-record-only gate (G4) 20/112 (17.86%). Strict CEV-39 (G5) makes 0 unsafe releases with 4 false holds (3.70%); CEV-39 with verdict invariance (G6) makes 0 unsafe releases and 0 false holds by construction, a specification check rather than performance evidence.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.2
F39.2 (deterministic, E39-A): under a 3-of-4 quorum only a 2-2 lens split changes the outcome. For rule-following witnesses it holds exactly the 4 outcome relevant unresolved states; for lens-only witnesses it still releases 8 unsafe states where the records agree with each other but not with the computation the contract requires.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.3
F39.3 (live, E39-B): all four witnesses returned the correct verdict on 48/48 evaluations of designated-record and required-computation conflicts under both lenses, and on 8/8 evaluations of the invariant unresolved packet K09. Quotes were verified verbatim in the packet in 96/96 evaluations and inside the cited instrument in 85/96.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.4
F39.4 (live, E39-B): witnesses returned HOLD on 0/96 evaluations, including 0/16 on the outcome relevant unresolved packets K07 and K08. On K08, every presumptive run returned PASS and every precautionary run returned FAIL, while all 8 runs flagged the conflict. Lens dependence occurred only on K07 (3/4 witnesses) and K08 (4/4), and on 0/40 other witness and packet pairs.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.5
F39.5 (live, E39-B): across all 16 possible lens assignments, K08 was held in 6/6 balanced two and two assignments and released in 10/10 unbalanced ones. The Round 38 lens panel (A3) released K08 by 3-1; the CEV-39 gate (A8) released 10/12 correctly with 0/12 unsafe releases and 2/12 holds.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.6
F39.6 (live, E39-C): on 24 real executed exhibits from SEC EDGAR, Witness C matched the structural effectiveness label on 22/24 and Witness B on 9/9 completed; the two witnesses agreed on 8/9 paired exhibits. One mismatch traces to an audit window cut after the effectiveness clause.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-39.7
F39.7 (authoring audit): witness rationales identified a defect in packet K07, whose base agreement makes the invoice premature regardless of the conflict. The pre-registered label is kept and K07 excluded results are reported alongside.
Round 39 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-38.1
F38.1 (deterministic, E38-A): across 464 feasible post-register-closure states (16 positive, 448 negative), TDR-37 date-only section resolution (G2) admits 41/448 negative states (FAR 9.15%, 32 wrong verdicts) and rejects 13/16 valid states (FRR 81.25%). External operative verification without sub-clause partition (G5) leaves FAR 0.45% and FRR 6.25%; full CIV-38 (G6) reaches 0.00% FAR and 0.00% FRR by construction, a specification check rather than performance evidence.
Round 38 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-38.2
F38.2 (deterministic, E38-A): on V01-V12, TDR-37 date-only section resolution matches authored truth on 2/12 lifecycles (V11, V12), whereas the OpAsOf sub-clause resolver matches on 12/12; coarse operative resolution reaches 10/12, condition-only 6/12, and base-only 7/12.
Round 38 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-38.3
F38.3 (live, E38-B View R): unlike Round 37 (0/36 split vote sets), role-decorrelated evidentiary instructions produced 3-1 split votes on 9/12 View R packets (V01-V08 and V11). Witness B, assigned a precautionary burden-of-proof lens, was correct on 11/12; Witness A, Witness C, and Witness D, assigned presumptive register effectiveness, were correct on 4/12 each. The splits were instructed, not spontaneous.
Round 38 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-38.4
F38.4 (live, E38-B View R): because a 3-1 split still satisfies a 3-of-4 majority, ungated quorum (A3) and TDR-37 (A4) released 8/12 (66.67%) false certifications. All 36/36 receipts on the 9 verification-dependent packets set operative_validity_verifiable = false, and pre-reopen CIV-38 (A6) held those 9 packets with 0/12 false releases while releasing V09, V10, and V12.
Round 38 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-38.5
F38.5 (live, E38-B View V): with DOC-VERIF attached, 48/48 witness evaluations returned the exact verdict, controlling instrument, and sub-clause with verified quotes (A2 and A7 both 12/12 correct, 0 false, 0 holds). TDR-37 on View V (A5) held 10/12 valid packets (V01-V10) because its date-only resolver insisted on the inoperative or sibling-sub-clause instrument.
Round 38 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-37.1
In E37-A (1,536 feasible contract-lifecycle evidence states: 16 positive, 1,520 negative;), CCS-36 reference closure (G1) admits 208 negative states (FAR 13.68%, 80 with a wrong verdict); adding latest-executed-wins resolution (G2) rejects 8/16 valid states (FRR 50.00%); a self-attested register (G4) admits 24 and a stale register (G5) admits 8; the full TDR-37 gate (G6) admits 0, which holds by construction and is a specification check, not performance evidence. On L01-L12 the as-of resolver matches authored truth 12/12, executed-before-event 9/12, latest-executed-wins 7/12, base-only 5/12.
Round 37 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-37.2
In E37-B (96 live witness evaluations;), base-only packets produced unanimous 4-0 votes on 12/12 lifecycles and unanimous wrong verdicts on 7/12; ungated voting and oracle-free CCS-36 both released all 7 falsely and 0/48 receipts reported an unattached reference. TDR-37 held 11/12 on the register gap with 0 false releases. With the full lifecycle and register extract, 48/48 witness answers were correct and cited the as-of controlling instrument, so every arm, including a single Witness A witness, released 12/12 correctly.
Round 37 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-37.3
In E37-C (48 live witness evaluations;), removing the most recently executed instrument from both the packet and its register extract made 20/20 answers wrong on the 5 lifecycles where that instrument governs; TDR-37 trusting the packet's extract released all 5 falsely, while a gate-side register of record released 0 and held 11/12. Witness completeness self-reports were inconsistent (true on 5, 10, 12, and 7 of 12 packets by family) and on L08 all 4/4 witnesses asserted completeness and were wrong.
Round 37 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-36.1
In E36-A (4^7 = 16,384 multi-document configurations: 8 positive CCS_CERTIFIED states, 16,376 negative compromised states;), GTP-34 quorum agreement alone (G0) falsely accepts 4,088 states (FAR 24.96%); local single-document CIS-35 (G1) still falsely accepts 126 cross-document override states (FAR 0.77%) while rejecting 6/8 valid multi-document compositions (FRR 75.00%); multi-document attachment without precedence-DAG verification (G2) falsely accepts 56 states; and rigid scalar schemas (G3) reject 6/8 valid compositions (FRR 75.00%). Full CCS-36 (G5) achieves TP = 8, FP = 0, TN = 16,376, FN = 0 (0.00% FAR, 0.00% FRR, 100.00% accuracy). At independent witness error p_indep = 0.15, per-hop retrieval recall q = 0.85 across m = 3 documents raises 3-of-4 quorum failure from 1.20% to 28.62% (q* = 96.50% required to beat a single p_single = 0.08 full-packet auditor).
Round 36 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-36.2
In E36-B (108 live witness evaluations across M01-M12 and Witness A, Witness B, Witness C, Witness D;), local single-document CIS-35 (Arm 2) and ungated 4-family voting (Arm 3) both suffer 6/6 unanimous 4-0 false certified releases on Stratum 1 dangling overrides (M01-M06, 50.00% overall false certification rate), and Arm 2 also holds M09 and M10 fail-closed (4/12 = 33.33% correct releases). CCS-36 before reopen (Arm 4) catches all 6/6 dangling overrides fail-closed (0/12 false releases), and CCS-36 on the closed transitive bundle (Arm 5) achieves 12/12 (100.00%) certified correct releases, 0/12 false releases, and 0/12 holds, resolving both Round 35 C03/C12 hold archetypes (M09 and M10).
Round 36 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-35.1
In E35-A, structural grounding alone (G0) falsely accepts all 4,088 compromised post-GTP-34 panels (100.00% FAR); family diversity alone (G1) or verbatim substring checking alone (G2) still falsely accept 2,040/4,088 (49.90%). The full CIS-35 gate (G5) achieves 8 TP, 0 FP, 4,088 TN, 0 FN. At marginal witness error p = 0.25, a 3-of-4 quorum with pairwise error correlation rho >= 0.35 fails at 12.05%, worse than a single p = 0.10 checker.
Round 35 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-35.2
In E35-B, on Stratum 2 shared retrieval-slice truncation traps (C05-C08), both the ungated homogeneous Witness A quorum and the ungated 4-family heterogeneous quorum produce 4/4 unanimous 4-0 false consensus (33.33% overall false certification rate). CIS-35 on the canonical bundle (Arm 5) reduces false certified releases to 0/12 (0.00%), certifies 10/12 (83.33%) correct releases, and holds 2/12 (16.67%) fail-closed on C03 and C12 section-label granularity.
Round 35 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-34.1
Distinct-key, immediate-issuer, terminal-component and reachability-only policies produce 216,648, 169,992, 58,320 and 165,888 false certifications in the declared uniform finite universe. Depth-2 fail-open produces 109,944 false certifications. These are combinatorial facts, not empirical rates.
Round 34 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-34.2
Depth-2 and depth-3 fail-closed validation produce zero false certifications but miss 7,776 and 648 valid graphs. Four visible edges resolve every anchor or cycle only in this bounded graph. GTP-34 is proposed; no production trust store, key, policy or deployment changed.
Round 34 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-33.1
Across 3,375 enumerated topologies (211 positive, 3,164 negative), distinct signatures and self-attested unique roots accept every world and falsely certify all 3,164 negative worlds. Optimistic one- and two-layer external audits still produce 1,364 and 434 false certifications. These are combinatorial properties of the stated uniform universe, not empirical estimates.
Round 33 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-33.2
The complete three-layer arm classifies the finite universe exactly by construction, and the fail-closed fixed-trio arm certifies 64 of 211 positive worlds with zero false certifications. The readiness audit remains 29 present, 4 partial, 1 absent with critical failures A3, I1, R4, R5 and C6; the model-facing pilot remains BLOCKED.
Round 33 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-32.1
On 256 authored synthetic cases from 16 author-known fault families, B3 classified 240/256 exactly and detected 208/224 critical faults. All 16 shared-administrator aliases were accepted; their observable-pattern sets matched clean cases. These are diagnostic results, not production reliability or out-of-template generalization.
Round 32 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-32.2
The 34-control audit remains 29 present, 4 partial, 1 absent, with critical failures A3, I1, R4, R5 and C6. Model-facing readiness remains BLOCKED.
Round 32 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-31.1
On seven authored conformance fixtures only, B0 and B1 each made 1/7 correct decisions with 6 false accepts; B2 made 5/7 with 2 false accepts; B3 made 7/7 with 0 false accepts. These do not estimate field failure rates, model accuracy, or causal effect size.
Round 31 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-31.2
The sandbox re-audit found 29 present, 4 partial, 1 absent controls, with five critical failures: A3, I1, R4, R5, C6. Live E30-B remains BLOCKED; the improved count does not transfer to production.
Round 31 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-30.1
34 controls; 8 present, 3 partial, 23 absent; 26 critical controls partial or absent; fail-closed verdict BLOCKED. The checker validates the declared manifest, not the correctness of the human code review.
Round 30 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-30.2
Frozen snapshots, source versions, hashes, packet spans, model traces and usage telemetry are useful foundations but do not establish root-action fidelity, separation or unresolved structural equivalence.
Round 30 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-29.1
Three content probes identify all 36 observable response functions but root provenance in 0% of the 72 structural worlds. Provenance twins are interventionally equivalent under every admissible content probe. Exact diagnostic result, not a population estimate.
Round 29 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-29.2
Greedy entropy and minimax splitting identify all behaviors with 2.50 mean probes. Equating strict local response with root independence is wrong in 50% of the deliberately paired worlds. Verified root rotation establishes a prospective boundary, not historical independence.
Round 29 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-28.1
Declared-variant model intervals covered exact conditional probabilities in 100.00% of weighted histories under all three authored priors. Held-out hidden-common-origin coverage was 72.08% (uniform), 60.57% (benign), and 65.43% (issuer shift). These are exact constructed results, not production estimates.
Round 28 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-28.2
All hidden-common-origin histories remained compatible with the declared set. Passive adequacy AUROC ranged from 0.488 to 0.577. TSAR did not systematically dominate scalar routing at matched coverage; most cells tied.
Round 28 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-27.1
A model-set unanimity gate separates verdict safety from scheduling efficiency under fixed verification budgets: four policies using the 116-scenario gate produced no wrong categorical verdict in any of the 3,712 in-model policy-world runs, while a nominal target-entropy policy resolved 100 percent of cases but falsely emitted NO_CHANGE in 11.23 percent of changed cases in one regime.
Round 27 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-27.2
An out-of-model common-origin stress shows that extra evidence can increase false confidence: with the hidden_common_origin variant excluded from the planning set, the exact MSAV policy's false-clean rate reached 33.68 percent among changed worlds at budget 9. Myopic adaptivity can underperform a fixed target-first schedule.
Round 27 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-26.1
In the declared one-fault universe, SACP leaves eight opposite-target ambiguity pairs; adding one independently rooted external commitment reduces that count to zero. Under two faults, SACP plus external commitment leaves 26 pairs; adding an independently rooted behavior probe reduces that count to zero. These are exact finite-model counts, not prevalence-weighted rates.
Round 26 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-26.2
Against three failed roots, four genuinely independent target-sensitive roots identify the target in the declared model. If the witness shares the issuer root, no available set identifies change against three failed roots. Root independence is an assumption.
Round 26 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-25.1
On 80 authored traces, SACP alerted on 55 of 60 gap traces and none of the 20 negative controls (trace recall 0.9167, precision 1.0000, claim-weighted recall 0.8944). Revalidate-all achieved 1.0000 recall but alerted on all 20 negative controls and created 400 claim-review tasks, compared with 161 for SACP. A sequence-only policy falsely alerted on all five benign-reordering controls. These numbers show that the implementation conforms to the authored distinctions. They do not estimate production precision, recall, incident prevalence, reliability, cost, or user impact.
Round 25 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-24.1
On 23 authored fixtures, the proposed authority-lineage selector preserved every expected claim edge with one conservative extra edge, while repository-only selectors missed every deliberately non-repository fixture. Conformance to an authored model, not evidence of production effectiveness.
Round 24 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-23.1
The hybrid selector found all three artifacts labeled relevant in the real interval, including one uniquely added by an independently derived import view. It also selected four irrelevant artifacts and invalidated two claims that adjudication later found unaffected. Design evidence from one interval, not a general validation result.
Round 23 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-22.1
On the actual 127-path diff, the measurement-only watchlist selected 0 of the 17 audited critical paths, the filename heuristic 12 of 17 with 25 false positives, retest-all all 127, and the authored CTAG manifest exactly the 17. The 17-path set and tags were manually authored from the same change set, so this is not discovery accuracy or compute savings.
Round 22 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-22.2
On 32 authored mutation fixtures CTAG routed 32 of 32 exactly (direct watchlist 9, filename keyword 7, retest all 3). Specification tests on authored fixtures, not evidence of out-of-sample accuracy.
Round 22 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-22.3
Two historical claims preserved; five current claims made stale, then restored after direct inspection; two hypotheses left untested.
Round 22 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-21.1
Under the current three-write best-effort persistence model, seven of eight possible write states are incomplete yet do not block release; ABMG audit-qualifies none of those seven. Logical state-space result, not a measured production rate.
Round 21 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-21.2
Ten envelope-only mutations collide under the current content-only fingerprint, 24 equal-byte different-version source pairs and 24 distinct service-response pairs collapse under the current records, and five bad stream fixtures are falsely accepted by a development model of the current parser; the ABMG projection separates or rejects all of them. Constructed fixtures, not production results.
Round 21 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-20.1
Endpoint and generic operational records miss evidence-specific corruption: A0 detected 2 of 12 mutation families and A1 detected 4 of 12, while content-bound receipts detected all 12 across 96 episodes with zero clean false positives. Constructed-fixture results, not model performance.
Round 20 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-20.2
An operator-only digest chain does not survive a privileged rewrite by that operator: after simulated rewrite, operator-only arms detected 0 of 12 families. Receipts bind observable delivery under assumptions; they do not prove source truth, completeness before emission, service-internal processing, semantic support, or causal evidence use.
Round 20 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-19.1
Constructed collision: terminal output plus aggregate usage cannot determine whether the corrective source was delivered. A narrow indistinguishability result over constructed records, not model performance.
Round 19 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-19.2
Static audit: 4 of 18 collector-contract requirements present, 3 partial, 11 absent at the required granularity.
Round 19 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-18.1
Constructed example: a timestamp-only newest-recorded rule returns a late January correction (60) for a March current query whose correct fixture answer is 75. A counterexample over hand-specified records, not model performance.
Round 18 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-18.2
Exact check: 24 temporal-query checks hold across all six arrival orders of the three-record example, plus 12 checks of baseline failure, conflict handling, dependency repair, alternative support, and source integrity.
Round 18 · Artificial Cognitive Architecture
Audit observation - F-17.1
Constructed example: a one-bit message that answers the release question perfectly leaves a 3/4 accuracy ceiling on a later test-status question under a stipulated uniform distribution. A possibility result, not model performance.
Round 17 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-17.2
Exact enumeration: 5, 2 and 1 of 15 partitions preserve every answer as the question family grows, needing at least 2, 3 and 4 message states. None of 60 deterministic recompressions restores a lost distinction.
Round 17 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-16.1
A supported fact does not establish decision sufficiency: the exact fictional policy counterexample leaves both review decisions possible.
Round 16 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-16.2
Exact finite-world enumeration yields 3,778 determined and 3,134 underdetermined pairs among 6,912 pairs. These are checker diagnostics, not model performance.
Round 16 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-16.3
A valid decision-changing pair establishes a gap within the modeled scope; failed bounded search does not certify completeness. Scope expansion can reopen a decision.
Round 16 · Reasoning & Verification
Audit observation - F-15.1
Behavioral influence does not establish a useful correction.
Round 15 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-15.2
Message value depends on the receiver's existing information and on other messages.
Round 15 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-15.3
A local communication benefit must still survive a complete-system comparison under measured resources.
Round 15 · Collaborative Intelligence
Audit observation - F-14.1
Exact constructed example: 97.5% snapshot-label accuracy coexists with a reversed comparison (true −2 points, judged +3 points). This is a possibility result on invented labels, not a measured Noetis failure rate.
Round 14 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-14.2
Exact constructed example: a pooled confusion correction restores the overall mean to 79% while the corrected comparison stays in the wrong direction (+3.4054 points).
Round 14 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-14.3
Exact constructed example: six valid identical-artifact couplings narrow whole-cohort bounds from [0, 20] to [6, 14] points without resolving either artifact's correctness.
Round 14 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-13.1
Replaying the current scorer reproduced all 119 nonempty stored scores.
Round 13 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-13.2
Appending the full source as a labeled appendix removed detected-issue credit in all 114 outputs that had it.
Round 13 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-13.3
Removing appended approved findings changed detection counts in 44 of 59 nonempty panel outputs.
Round 13 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-13.4
Saved results keep the final brief and latest check, but not before/after pairs, so a repair flag cannot distinguish a fix from a new error.
Round 13 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-13.5
Usage data existed for 19 panel cases and no baseline cases.
Round 13 · Evaluation Science
Audit observation - F-12.1
Exact synthetic diagnostics show how candidate thresholds trade coverage for an upper risk bound at fixed δ = 5% and family size 3. These are worked calculations, not model performance.
Round 12 · Reasoning & Verification
Synthetic diagnostic
Not independently replicated. Findings describe the records and calculations examined, not general system performance.