Artificial Cognitive Architecture

State of knowledge

Role specialization, working memory, selective activation, controllers that allocate effort, and brain-inspired ideas treated as testable engineering hypotheses, not emulation.

This track draws on 39 published rounds, 48 hypotheses and 79 experiments. 127 reported findings come from published rounds and have not been independently replicated.

Reported findings

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• F51.E5 (live): One reader output and the first synthesis call were empty; neither was scored or repeated as an experimental read. (Round 51)
• 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)
• F50.S2 (deterministic, E50-A): Across all 27 truth and paired verdict states, agreement routing leaves four unsafe states. (Round 50)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• F50.E6 (live): Five individual outputs are unusable (two empty, three truncated); none was repeated or scored as a HOLD. (Round 50)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Two historical claims preserved; five current claims made stale, then restored after direct inspection; two hypotheses left untested. (Round 22)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Static audit: 4 of 18 collector-contract requirements present, 3 partial, 11 absent at the required granularity. (Round 19)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• A supported fact does not establish decision sufficiency: the exact fictional policy counterexample leaves both review decisions possible. (Round 16)
• 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)
• 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)
• Behavioral influence does not establish a useful correction. (Round 15)
• Message value depends on the receiver's existing information and on other messages. (Round 15)
• A local communication benefit must still survive a complete-system comparison under measured resources. (Round 15)

Rounds in this track

1. Round 54 · 2026-11-11
   The Same Statements, New Cases: Held Out Replication of Domain General Propositions on New Packets and New Surface Forms

   Notebook
2. Round 53 · 2026-11-10
   Stated Plainly, Tested to Break: Domain General Candidate Propositions on Disagreement, Review, Memory and Evidence, on Held Out Mixed Cases

   When candidate propositions about disagreement, review, memory and evidence are stated in domain general language, which of them survive preregistered attempts to break them on leftover mixed cases that are not only contracts?

   Notebook
3. Round 52 · 2026-11-09
   The Second Reader or the Second Call? Matched Call Baselines for Agreement Routing, Validation and Recovery

   When a second or third model call improves a verdict, is it because a different reader looked, or only because another call was made, once every composition is compared with the same reader resampled, the same reader validating itself, and one call with room to argue each verdict, at the same number of calls?

   Notebook
4. Round 51 · 2026-11-08
   Valid Evidence, Wrong Verdict: Transfer Tests on Code Review and Raw Table Claims, with Independent Recovery

   Do the evidence, agreement and rewrite checks of the contract rounds transfer to a clearly different non-document task, code review against a specification and numerical claims against raw tables, and does routing a changed status to an independent reader recover correct repairs that a preservation gate would lose?

   Notebook
5. Round 50 · 2026-11-07
   When Both Readers Are Wrong: Open Removal Tests for Review and Rewriting

   Open removal tests, not another contract refinement: joint error when both roles can fail in the same direction, and rewrite gate behavior on genuinely wrong rewrites.

   Notebook
6. Round 49 · 2026-11-07
   Remember the Answer, or Remember the Procedure?

   When an independent reviewer reuses working memory, does a stale stored conclusion poison later decisions, does a deterministic revalidation guard remove the stale part, and does a reusable procedure help more than a stored answer?

   Notebook
7. Round 42 · 2026-10-31
   Role or Witness? Measured Joint Misreading of Undetermined Facts by One Witness in Two Roles and by Two Witnesses in One Role

   Does one witness reading in two roles, a direct verdict and an evidence ledger resolved by deterministic code, misread undetermined facts jointly less often than two different witnesses reading in the same role?

   Notebook
8. Round 41 · 2026-10-30
   Hard by Construction or Hard by Selection? Disagreement Mined Item Pools, Isomorphic Twin Holdouts, and the Consensus Errors That Disagreement Cannot Find

   Is selecting items on which witnesses disagree a sound way to build the hard pool that separates composition topologies, or does it overstate how much composition helps and leave consensus errors exactly where it cannot look?

   Notebook
9. Round 40 · 2026-10-29
   Composition Before Capability: Six Noetis Composition Topologies Compared on Release Safety, Abstention, and Calls per Decision

   Holding the evidence questions fixed, which way of composing four witnesses into one release decision gives the fewest unsafe releases and the best abstention per model call: a single witness, a forced majority, extract then deterministic resolve, a role specialized pipeline, critique and revision, or a disagreement routed hybrid?

   Notebook
10. Round 39 · 2026-10-29
    When the Records Disagree: Conflicting Collateral Evidence, Evidentiary Lens Balancing, and Abstention Failure in Multi-Witness Contract Audits

    Once every condition to effectiveness has an attached verification record (CIV-38), what should a multi-witness gate do when two attached collateral records of the same event disagree, and can a balanced two and two assignment of precautionary and presumptive evidentiary lenses make a 3-of-4 quorum abstain when the contract does not resolve the conflict?

    Notebook
11. Round 38 · 2026-10-28
    Signed Is Not Operative: Conditional Effectiveness, Counterpart Authority, and Sub-Clause Scope Partition in Multi-Witness Contract Audits

    Once a gate-side register of record has closed the instrument set and resolved the event date as-of (TDR-37), what happens when an attached, dated, signed instrument is still non-operative (due to an unsatisfied condition precedent, unilateral counterpart execution, a defective notice, or service to the wrong channel) or amends only one sub-clause while leaving a sibling sub-clause in the same section intact?

    Notebook
12. Round 37 · 2026-10-28
    When the Contract Changed After Signing: Event-Date Resolution, Register-Anchored Completeness, and Stale Registers in Multi-Witness Contract Audits

    When a later amendment, waiver, termination notice, or revocation changes a contract obligation without any forward pointer in the base agreement, what lets a multi-witness audit decide which instrument governed on the event date, and what makes the completeness of the instrument set checkable rather than self-asserted?

    Notebook
13. Round 36 · 2026-10-28
    When One Complete Document Is Still Half the Truth: Cross-Document Reference Closure, Precedence DAGs, and Compositional Clause Chains Across Multi-Instrument Quorums

    When each witness inspects a 100% byte-complete primary agreement inside a multi-document transaction graph G_doc = (D, E_ref, pi_prec), how do dangling incorporation-by-reference edges, precedence inversions, and compositional clause chains cause false certifications or false holds, and does Cross-Document Completeness and Sufficiency (CCS-36) achieve 0/12 false releases and 0/12 false holds at matched compute?

    Notebook
14. Round 35 · 2026-10-27
    When Grounded Witnesses Still Agree on a Falsehood: Correlated Semantic Failures, Verbatim Span Grounding, and Matched-Compute Multi-Model Quorums

    When a 3-of-4 witness quorum already satisfies AIC-33 provenance completeness and GTP-34 grounded trust paths, when do live model witnesses still converge on a false audit verdict, and does Correlated-Inspection Sufficiency (CIS-35) prevent false consensus at matched compute?

    Notebook
15. Round 34 · 2026-10-25
    Can Trust Bootstrap Itself? Circular Attestation, Sybil Issuers, and the Minimum Grounded Trust Base

    When witness-independence claims are supported by chains of cross-certificates or attestations, what observable condition distinguishes a genuinely grounded quorum from a circular or Sybil-generated endorsement structure, and how should bounded verification behave when a path cannot be completed?

    Notebook
16. Round 33 · 2026-10-24
    Who Certifies Independence? Provenance Completeness and the Limits of Self-Attested Witness Quorums

    Can a collaboration system certify that a 3-of-4 witness quorum is administratively independent using only witness-generated identities and provenance claims, or does a useful certificate require externally anchored and sufficiently complete dependency evidence?

    Notebook
17. Round 32 · 2026-10-23
    Who Watches the Witness? Boundary Hardening and a Blinded Mutation Holdout for the RISE Gate

    Under a fixed, replayable evidence bundle, can separately keyed witness, registry, and monitor services with append-only receipts detect execution and evidence-history faults on randomized hidden instances without rejecting clean cases, and what remains undetectable when all services share one administrator?

    Notebook
18. Round 31 · 2026-10-22
    Did the Root Actually Move? A Signed Sandbox Dry Run of the RISE Gate

    Can a signed, separately witnessed sandbox prove enough about one file-backed root action to distinguish clean execution from specified fidelity, freshness, isolation, and identifiability failures before any model inference is allowed?

    Notebook
19. Round 30 · 2026-10-21
    Can We Intervene for Real? A Fail-Closed Readiness Gate for Active Evidence-Lineage Trials

    Can the current Encevra/Noetis workflow execute an active evidence-lineage trial whose causal interpretation is warranted, and what minimum fail-closed protocol is required before E29-B may run?

    Notebook
20. Round 29 · 20 October 2026
    Round 29 - Make the Evidence Move: Active Source Interventions and the Limits of Dependency Discovery

    Under a fixed verification budget, which controlled interventions can distinguish independent evidence roots from shared-root facades in a collaborative reasoning system, and what evidence justifies an independence claim rather than an explicit unresolved-equivalence finding?

    Notebook
21. Round 28 · 19 October 2026
    Round 28 - Confidence About What? Separating Target Probability, Structural Ambiguity, and Model Adequacy

    Under a fixed evidence and compute budget, does separating target probability, structural ambiguity, and model adequacy support safer abstention than a single confidence scalar?

    Notebook
22. Round 27 · 18 October 2026
    Round 27 - Which Check Should Run Next? Model-Set-Safe Verification Under a Fixed Budget

    Under a fixed observation budget, can a sequential verification policy improve correct resolution while avoiding harmful false confidence when the cost, efficacy, and independence of checks are uncertain?

    Notebook
23. Round 26 · 17 October 2026
    Round 26 - What Can the Watchers Ever Know? Minimum Observables for Detecting Omitted Change

    For each omitted-change failure class, which changed and unchanged worlds remain observationally identical, and what minimum independently rooted observable or trust assumption separates them?

    Notebook
24. Round 25 · 16 October 2026
    When Silence Looks Like Stability: Detecting Missing Change Evidence in Collaborative AI Systems

    Can an AI assurance system distinguish a genuinely quiet authority from a broken, delayed, stale, selectively silent, or common-mode observation path?

    Notebook
25. Round 24 · 15 October 2026
    Do Two Watchers Count as Two? Authority Lineage and Common-Origin Failure in Claim Revalidation

    How should Encevra represent the lineage and authority of change evidence so that multiple analyses of one source are not mistaken for independent coverage, and so that changes outside the repository can trigger bounded claim revalidation?

    Notebook
26. Round 23 · 14 October 2026
    Can the Gate Catch Tomorrow's Change? A Prospective Shadow Trial of Claim Revalidation

    Can a prospective gate notice when a genuinely later software change should make a current claim stale, without unnecessarily withdrawing unrelated claims or rewriting history?

    Notebook
27. Round 22 · 13 October 2026
    When Does an Audit Expire? Dependency-Triggered Revalidation for Rapidly Changing Agent Systems

    Can a typed claim-dependency graph automatically mark only the assurance claims affected by code, configuration, data, or external-contract changes as stale, preserve historically valid results, and require the right revalidation?

    Notebook
28. Round 21 · 12 October 2026
    Where Did the Trace Break? An Attempt-Bound, Fail-Closed Measurement Gate for Noetis

    Can a boundary-tapped, attempt-bound, atomic measurement gate reconstruct every Noetis external-service attempt and refuse audit-qualified release when the trace is incomplete, at fixed model compute?

    Notebook
29. Round 20 · 11 October 2026
    What Must the Log Reveal? Minimal-Disclosure Receipts for Verifiable Evidence Delivery

    Can salted, ordered, independently witnessed invocation receipts preserve exact application-observable evidence delivery for authorized audit while keeping raw prompts and source text out of routine telemetry, with acceptable leakage, false-alarm, storage, latency, and reconstruction costs?

    Notebook
30. Round 19 · 10 October 2026
    Did the Evidence Reach the Agent? Reconstructable Evidence Lifecycles for Reliable Experiments

    Can an Evidence Lifecycle Observation Contract reconstruct which immutable source version was admitted, what ordered material crossed each model invocation boundary, and how claims and the terminal output were bound to those events, better than final records and generic traces?

    Notebook
31. Round 18 · 9 October 2026
    When Evidence Changes: Versioned Support and Bounded Belief Repair

    At fixed total work and source access, does an append-only record that distinguishes valid time from recorded time and tracks claim dependencies improve current, historical, as-known, and downstream-consequence answers over strong overwrite, chronological-history, and newest-recorded baselines, without increasing false invalidation, unhelpful dispute states, or cost?

    Notebook
32. Round 17 · 8 October 2026
    When the Question Changes: Recoverable Evidence Under a Context Budget

    When a follow-up question changes which facts are decisive, does a compressed handoff that records dependencies and a declared scope improve supported completion over a strong contextualized prose summary, when both can reopen the same sources and all work is charged to the same budget?

    Notebook
33. Round 16 · 7 October 2026
    Before the Answer Closes: Detecting Missing Decision Conditions

    At a fixed total inference and source-access budget, does requiring a validated pair of evidence-compatible scenarios with different decisions reduce unsupported commitment more effectively than a strong missing-information checklist, without reducing useful completion or increasing harmful revision?

    Notebook
34. Round 15 · 6 October 2026
    What makes a message worth sharing?

    Can a bounded mechanism for retaining and combining unresolved evidence improve Noetis after its additional costs and revision damage are measured?

    Notebook
35. Round 11 · 3 October 2026
    When should collaborators spend their next unit of compute?

    Should verification effort go where a specific check is predicted to repair, rather than where uncertainty is highest?

    Notebook
36. Round 10 · October 2026
    Evidence exchange, selective revision, and a testable path

    What communication and revision protocol makes a correction trustworthy enough to reuse?

    Notebook
37. Round 9 · September 2026
    A research agenda for the lab

    Can systems acquire useful procedures from verified experience and revise them when conditions change?

    Notebook
38. Round 8 · September 2026
    Delayed feedback can act on a temporary trace

    How might later feedback modify a temporary trace without destabilising learned behaviour?

    Notebook
39. Round 3 · August 2026
    Hippocampal ripples and compositional inference

    Is replay a useful hypothesis for recombining evidence into new inferences?

    Notebook

Hypotheses

• H54.5route(D, D deliberate) beats route(D, D resample 1), and removing the HOLD case from the deliberate prompt removes the benefit.Supported
• H54.8Flag only review of Witness D creates no new unsafe outcome and has no more unsafe outcomes than rewriting review; rewriting review creates at least one new unsafe outcome.Rejected
• H54.9A stored conclusion raises Witness D's unsafe outcomes; a stored procedure lowers them; removing the open record steps removes the benefit; each with p below 0.05.Rejected
• H53.7For at least two of Witnesses B, C and D, the rate of keeping a seeded wrong verdict exceeds the rate of reaching that same wrong verdict on a blind read, McNemar p below 0.05.Rejected
• H53.8Flag only review of Witness D creates no new unsafe outcome and has no more unsafe outcomes than rewriting review; rewriting review creates at least one new unsafe outcome.Rejected
• H53.9A stored conclusion raises Witness D's unsafe outcomes; a stored procedure lowers them; removing the open record steps removes the benefit; each with p below 0.05.Rejected
• H52.5One Witness D call with twice the output allowance and a counter case step has no more unsafe outcomes than Witness D's two call self routing.Supported
• H52.6At three calls, recovery (Witness D read, Witness C validation, Witness B adjudicator) has no more unsafe outcomes than three reader unanimity and fewer false holds.Rejected
• H51.5With natural baselines, preservation loses at least one correct decisive repair, and independent recovery restores at least one without admitting a wrong decisive change.Inconclusive
• H50.2Procedure memory reduces same wrong decisive agreements without more false holds in either domain.Rejected
• H50.4Status preservation routes every naturally wrong status change from correct inputs, and every status changing repair of a wrong input.Supported
• H49.3The guarded note is followed less often than the stale note, and guarded accuracy is within 2 items of no memory in each domain.Rejected
• H49.4A procedure card is at least as accurate as no memory with no more unsafe verdicts.Supported
• H49.7Under a wrong brief, the locked final is at least as accurate as the unlocked revision; under a right brief, the locked final is at least as accurate as the provisional.Supported
• H49.8At least one note style yields nonzero live note following on HOLD exhibits, and the gate routes every followed release.Rejected
• H48.6The validator follows a note on at least one HOLD exhibit and the gate routes every such release.Rejected
• H47.5The validator follows a note on at least one HOLD exhibit and the gate routes every such release.Rejected
• H46.7Witness C follows a plausible note on at least one HOLD exhibit, and the unchanged gate routes every such release to review.Rejected
• H45.5The exploratory locality rule improves on R45 without new errors.Rejected
• H45.7A rewriting validator follows a misleading reviewer note on some annotated ledgers, and the unchanged gate catches the resulting releases but not the resulting holds.Rejected
• H44.6A gated rewriting validator makes no unsafe release on exhibit ledgers with harder seeded defects.Supported
• H43.4A flag only validator creates no unsafe release; a rewriting validator can.Supported
• H43.5A flag only validator pays for its safety in false holds that it cannot repair.Supported
• H42.1Pairs of one witness in two roles release joint unsafe verdicts on undetermined items less often than pairs of two witnesses in the same role.Supported
• H41.5Disagreement selection misses consensus errors that fall on items where all witnesses agree.Supported
• H40.1A forced majority does not reduce unsafe releases when witnesses do not abstain.Supported
• H40.3Routing extractor disagreement to review raises the fewest faults for an unsafe release from one to two.Supported
• H40.4Each added sequential model stage can introduce an error the single stage did not make.Supported
• H39.6The CEV-39 gate makes no unsafe release on the authored suite.Supported
• H38.6Full CIV-38 achieves 0/12 false releases before reopen (A6, View R) and 12/12 correct releases with 0/12 holds once DOC-VERIF is attached (A7, View V).Supported
• H37.5A register extract supplied inside the packet defeats TDR-37 when it is stale, and a gate-side register of record prevents those false releases.Supported
• H36.4Enforcing a rigid single scalar governing_section field on multi-document bundles (G3 in E36-A; Arm 2 on M09 and M10 in E36-B) causes a 75.00% (6/8) false rejection rate in E36-A and 2/12 (16.67%) false holds in E36-B, whereas CCS-36's compositional (base_entitlement_section, decisive_override_section, inline_fact_sufficiency) tuple reduces false holds to 0/8 in E36-A and 0/12 in E36-B.Supported
• H33.6Declared stack heterogeneity without administrative or evidence-root separation will not match the benefit of heterogeneity plus anchored separation.Proposed
• H32-CPer-case namespace, nonce, canary, and decoy separation will reduce cross-arm contamination relative to shared caches even when task content is semantically similar.Proposed
• H22-4Separating historical_frozen from current states will reduce misleading carry-forward while preserving reproducibility and citation stability.Proposed
• H22-6Comparing authored dependencies with runtime or static dependency evidence will catch manifest omissions that either method alone misses.Proposed
• H21-4With model calls held identical, A1 instrumentation adds at most 5 ms median and 20 ms p95 synchronous latency, at most 15 KB median content-free storage per external-service call, and no statistically or practically meaningful answer-quality regression.Proposed
• H21-6The boundary tap outperforms an otherwise equivalent post-hoc collector under envelope mutation and fallback.Proposed
• H20-2An independent checkpoint detects at least 0.99 of seeded post-checkpoint operator rewrites with false-alarm rate at most 0.01, outperforming operator-only chains by at least 0.20 absolute detection.Proposed
• H20-4At the synthetic live boundary, p95 receipt creation plus durable checkpoint enqueue stays under the stricter of 5 ms or 5 percent of non-model orchestration latency, with median public receipt size under 2 KiB.Proposed
• H19-3An external-content mode using version, digest, length, locator and access receipt reduces routinely captured sensitive bytes while preserving identity reconstruction.Proposed
• H18-1Bitemporal selection improves historical-now and as-known accuracy over deterministic newest-recorded selection at the frozen budget.Proposed
• H17-1Under the same explicit scope check, a structured record improves changed-question supported completion over strong prose without unacceptable damage or cost.Proposed
• H16-2Scope discovery helps more when a relevant rule is absent from the representation than when only a named value is missing.Proposed
• H12-2Revision state adds information beyond task difficulty.Proposed
• H11-1A repair/damage-predicting controller improves task success over a whole-answer router at a fixed cost ceiling.Proposed
• H11-3Bundled checks help on complementary-evidence tasks after overhead.Proposed
• H11-4Predicted usefulness outperforms uncertainty-first routing on matched pairs.Proposed

Experiments

• E54-AStructural diagnostic for routing, flag only review and rewriting review, with gold certificatesComplete
• E54-BIndependent, repeated, resampled and deliberate reads on new packets and new surface formsComplete
• E54-CRewriting review, flag only review and seeded wrong proposalsComplete
• E54-DStored conclusions, a domain general stored procedure, and an ablation of its open record stepsComplete
• E53-AStructural diagnostic for routing, flag only review and rewriting review, with replay and gold certificatesComplete
• E53-BBlind label audit and independent, repeated, resampled and deliberate readsComplete
• E53-CRewriting review, flag only review and seeded wrong proposalsComplete
• E53-DStored conclusion and stored procedure memory armsComplete
• E52-AStructural diagnostic for unanimity, majority, routing and recovery, with replay and gold certificatesComplete
• E52-BIndependent, resampled, deliberate and procedure card reads at matched call countsComplete
• E52-CCross validation, self validation and recovery against matched call baselinesComplete
• E51-AStructural diagnostic for evidence span, example execution, preservation and recovery gatesComplete
• E51-BIndependent reads on code review, raw table claims and SEC covenant claimsComplete
• E51-CValidation of natural baselines with replayed preservation and recoveryComplete
• E50-AStructural diagnostic for quote and status preservation gates and agreement routingComplete
• E50-BSecond read and procedure memory removal on contract and non-contract policy packetsComplete
• E50-CLive ledger rewrites from correct and wrong starting ledgersComplete
• E49-AStructural diagnostic for memory revalidation and the commitment lockComplete
• E49-BContract working memory and stored commitment studyComplete
• E49-CPublic exhibit note styles on 24 new filingsComplete
• E49-DQuality release record working memory studyComplete
• E42-AStructural certificates, gold resolver ledger, and Frechet bounds for reader pairsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E42-BLive contrast families read in two roles by three witnessesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E42-CLive two role reading of real SEC exhibitsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E41-AExact disagreement selection enumeration with twin holdoutsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E41-BLive isomorphic twin screen and holdout on authored familiesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E41-CLive screen on real SEC exhibits chosen for surface trapsExecuted
• E40-AExact composition topology enumerationExecuted (diagnostic)
• E40-BLive six-topology benchmark on authored packetsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E40-CLive six-topology benchmark on real SEC exhibitsExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E39-AConflicting collateral evidence state-space diagnostic and lens composition analysisExecuted (diagnostic)
• E39-BLive 4-witness conflicting-evidence benchmark under two evidentiary lensesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E39-CReal SEC EDGAR exhibit track: conditional versus unconditional effectivenessExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E38-APost-register-closure operative-validity state-space diagnostic and resolver comparisonExecuted (diagnostic)
• E38-BLive 4-architecture operative-validity benchmark (View R vs View V)Executed (diagnostic)
• E37-AContract-lifecycle evidence state-space diagnostic and resolver consistency checkExecuted (diagnostic)
• E37-BLive 4-architecture contract-lifecycle benchmark (base-only vs full lifecycle)Executed (diagnostic)
• E37-CLive stale-register probeExecuted (diagnostic)
• E36-AMulti-document reference-graph and precedence-DAG state-space diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E36-BLive matched-compute 4-architecture multi-document contract-audit benchmarkExecuted (diagnostic)
• E35-APost-GTP-34 correlated-inspection state-space diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E35-BLive matched-compute multi-model contract-audit benchmarkExecuted (diagnostic)
• E34-ARecursive endorsement graph enumerationExecuted (diagnostic)
• E34-BExternal bootstrap and semantic handoffProposed
• E33-AThree-root external pilot and matched-compute AIC-33 experimentProposed
• E31-CBoundary hardening and blinded mutation holdoutProposed
• E30-BProposed matched-compute shadow trial of the RISE GateProposed
• E29-AExact finite deterministic interventional-lineage diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E29-BProposed matched-cost live Interventional Lineage TestProposed
• E28-AExact fixed-compute constructed trace replayExecuted (diagnostic)
• E27-AExact finite constructed diagnostic of budgeted verification policiesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E27-BFixed-compute shadow comparison of model-set adaptive verificationProposed
• E26-ADeterministic finite-model identifiability analysisExecuted (diagnostic)
• E26-BProspective fixed-budget observation-sufficiency shadow experimentProposed
• D25-AAdversarial-omission authored conformance diagnostic (D25-A)Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E25-BProspective fixed-budget multi-authority silence-coverage trial with hidden independent adjudicationProposed
• D24-AAuthority coverage audit and authored conformance diagnostic (D24-A)Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E24-BProspective multi-authority authority-lineage revalidation experiment with independent adjudicationProposed
• D23-AProspective shadow trial of claim revalidation (D23-A)Executed (bounded shadow diagnostic)
• E23-BProspective multi-release CTAG shadow evaluation with independent adjudicationProposed
• D22-ADeterministic code-change routing diagnostic (D22-A)Executed (diagnostic)
• E22-BProspective CTAG evaluation on unseen Encevra changes at controlled verification computeProposed
• E21-ADeterministic attempt-bound measurement gate diagnostic (D21-A)Executed (diagnostic)
• E21-BShadow ABMG evaluation on real external-service traffic at fixed model computeProposed
• E20-ADeterministic minimal-disclosure receipt development harnessExecuted (diagnostic)
• E20-BHeld-out receipt comparison against strong generic tracesProposed
• E19-ADeterministic evidence-lifecycle validator and static collector auditExecuted (diagnostic)
• E19-BReconstruction under frozen trajectoriesProposed
• E18-AExact deterministic constructed bitemporal and repair diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E18-BFive-arm versioned evidence study (O0/A0/T0/B0/B1)Proposed
• E17-AExact finite constructed recoverability diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E17-BFrozen-handoff question-change study (P0/P1/S0/S1)Proposed
• E16-AExact finite-world sufficiency diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E16-BBounded missing-condition studyProposed
• E15-AExact diagnostics on constructed distributionsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E15-BStudy A: support and recommendation fields (2x2)Proposed
• E15-CStudy B: complementary withheld facts (optional)Proposed
• E11-AMarginal-value verification controllerProposed
• E10-AEvidence exchange versus conclusion sharingProposed

Architecture changes in Noetis

• A-01 Conservative role triage with full-panel fallback: Skip optional roles only on confident, valid routing; otherwise run every role. (In Noetis (preview))

Open questions

• Should Theory v1 admit C1, C2, C3 and C7 as worded, given survival in both rounds? (Round 54)
• Can C4, C5 and C6 be restated more narrowly, or should they be dropped? (Round 54)
• How should family clustered intervals and temperature 0 run variance be reported in Theory v1? (Round 54)
• What real SEC claim can separate arms, now that employment agreements and notes have both been at ceiling? (Round 54)
• Do the surviving statements (C1, C2, C3, C7) hold on new packets and surface forms with family clustered intervals? (Round 53)
• Can C4, C5 and C6 be restated more narrowly, or should they be dropped? (Round 53)
• Does the stored procedure still help on families authored without sight of its wording? (Round 53)
• Does a different reading procedure in one call beat a different reader at matched calls and matched output allowance on held out near miss structures outside Round 49? (Round 52)
• Which non-contract materials produce single reader errors, given that near threshold arithmetic and declared missing rows did not? (Round 52)
• Do routing, preservation and recovery separate on items hard enough that single readers make decisive errors in each domain, under matched call baselines? (Round 51)
• Should a decisive minority verdict that carries an executable counterexample be checked rather than vetoed by agreement routing? (Round 51)
• Does a preservation gate with an explicit trust boundary and an independently adjudicated recovery path keep its protection without losing correct repairs? (Round 50)
• Do the Round 49 hard near miss errors reappear as same wrong decisive agreements on a direct replication? (Round 50)
• Is the shared near miss FAIL of Witnesses C and D a joint error that removing or swapping a role exposes? (Round 49)
• Does stored memory with the structure of a ledger and an automated outcome anchor where a plain stored conclusion does not? (Round 49)
• When the packet is declared an open or a closed record, do direct readers still read absence as negation, and once extraction readers can err unsafely, do the same witness's unsafe releases coincide across roles? (Round 42)
• On a pool built by construction, with undetermined fact items labelled HOLD and PASS and scored on held out twins, is the joint error of one witness in direct and extraction roles lower than that of two different witnesses in the same role? (Round 41)
• On a hard pool selected for witness disagreement, with externally reviewed HOLD labels, do disagreement routed topologies keep their safety without excessive review load, and do flag only validators avoid the errors that rewriting validators introduce? (Round 40)
• With a neutral instruction that offers HOLD and no evidentiary lens, and with expected verdicts audited outside the authoring process, do witnesses abstain on outcome relevant unresolved conflicts, and can a four-witness quorum on real SEC exhibits tie each conditioned amendment to the filer's later statement that it became effective? (Round 39)
• Can a balanced 2-2 assignment of precautionary and presumptive evidentiary lenses block unverified modifications through voting alone when the contract does not explicitly name DOC-VERIF, and how should a gate behave when two attached verification records conflict (CEV-39)? (Round 38)
• With register coverage and as-of resolution held fixed, can witnesses distinguish an executed instrument from an effective one when a waiver depends on an unmet condition precedent, a termination notice is defective, an amendment lacks authorized signature, or two registered amendments overlap within one clause, and does deliberate witness decorrelation produce informative split votes? (Round 37)
• Can Round 37 formulate and test Temporal Drift and Post-Execution Amendment Supersession (TDR-37) when a post-execution Amendment, Waiver, or Termination Notice modifies an earlier obligation silently without any forward pointer in the base agreement? (Round 36)
• Can Round 36 replace the single governing_section field with a compositional clause-chain schema (CCS-36) that reduces the 2/12 conservative fail-closed holds on C03 and C12 to 0/12 while preserving 0.00% false certified releases on truncated and decoy-injected contracts? (Round 35)
• Can Round 35 execute an externally administered bootstrap-and-rotation intervention with hidden fixtures before a matched-compute model experiment, only after all critical readiness controls are present? (Round 34)
• Can Round 34 provision at least three witnesses with independently administered identities, key custody, and deployment controls, obtain one external binding per witness per critical layer, and run AIC-33 before action with hidden shared-root and stale-binding cases adjudicated by a separate authority? (Round 33)
• Can Round 33 establish separately administered witnesses and registry services, external history observation and real isolation before an independently authored holdout and any paired model-answer runner? (Round 32)
• Can Round 32 harden witness authority, arm isolation and external receipt registration, freeze a blinded mutation holdout and implement a paired matched-compute runner before any model pilot? (Round 31)
• Can Round 31 build a sandboxed vertical slice with root identity, a non-destructive root action, independent witness, separation and budget records, and equivalence-aware outcomes before piloting E30-B? (Round 30)
• Can Round 30 execute E29-B in shadow mode with independently verifiable root interventions, receipts, leakage prevention and matched total compute? If prerequisites fail, report the infrastructure gap. (Round 29)
• Can a fixed-cost active intervention discover a missing evidence dependency that passive confidence, disagreement, and surprise cannot detect? (Round 28)
• Does model-set adaptive verification reduce harmful false-clean rates at fixed compute with hidden independent adjudication in E27-B? (Round 27)
• Does OSC reduce harmful false-stability certifications at fixed total cost with hidden independent adjudication in E26-B? (Round 26)
• Does SACP reduce independently adjudicated affected-claim gap misses at fixed total budget in a preregistered prospective multi-authority trial (E25-B)? (Round 25)
• Does authority-lineage revalidation reduce stale-claim escape in a prospectively frozen, independently adjudicated, multi-authority, fixed-budget experiment (E24-B)? (Round 24)
• Does the hybrid reduce stale-claim escape across a preregistered multi-release window with independent adjudication (E23-B)? (Round 23)
• Does a prospective CTAG shadow gate reduce stale-claim escape under fixed verification budget on unseen real commits? (Round 22)
• Which independent dependency view adds unique catches? (Round 22)
• Can unknown execution paths be caught and historical claims kept immutable in a shadow slice? (Round 22)
• Does ABMG capture at least 99.5 percent of live attempts exactly? (Round 21)
• Does synchronous gate overhead meet budget at fixed model compute? (Round 21)
• Does failure labeling improve reviewer reconstruction, and does the privacy design withstand review? (Round 21)
• Does MDIR improve real audit accuracy at acceptable cost against strong generic traces with independent immutable export? (Round 20)
• Does an independent checkpoint recover detection after a privileged operator rewrite? (Round 20)
• Can reviewer burden and operational overhead stay within the frozen development-gate thresholds? (Round 20)
• Do exposure ledgers improve exact exposure reconstruction over final records and generic traces? (Round 19)
• Does claim lineage improve first-divergence localization without false attribution? (Round 19)
• Can hash, version and locator binding reduce captured sensitive content while preserving identity reconstruction? (Round 19)
• Do bitemporal fields beat deterministic newest-recorded assembly on historical and as-known questions at matched cost? (Round 18)
• Does dependency-directed repair improve downstream consequences without excessive false invalidation? (Round 18)
• Does an explicit disputed state reduce unsupported commitment without collapsing useful coverage? (Round 18)
• Does a structured record beat strong prose under the same explicit scope check at equal total cost? (Round 17)
• Does a scope check recover confident omissions beyond unrestricted discretionary lookup? (Round 17)
• Does reopening help only when it actually exposes usable evidence? (Round 17)
• Does validated alternative generation improve supported task completion over a strong checklist at matched budget? (Round 16)
• Does scope discovery help when a relevant rule is absent from the representation? (Round 16)
• Can decision relevance reduce unsupported closure without needless questions or reduced useful completion? (Round 16)
• Can a bounded mechanism for retaining and combining unresolved evidence improve Noetis after its additional costs and revision damage are measured? (Round 15)
• Do localized checks plus short bundles beat a whole-answer router? (Round 11)
• Can harmful revisions be bounded while spending more on checks? (Round 11)
• Does exchanging evidence outperform exchanging conclusions at matched cost? (Round 10)
• Do procedures learned from verified experience transfer to unfamiliar problems? (Round 9)
• Can credit be assigned to the evidence that changed a specific requirement? (Round 8)
• Which replayed decision points actually change later actions? (Round 3)