auto-fix: strip 5 broken wiki links

Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.

domains/space-development/orbital-data-center-cost-premium-converged-from-7-10x-to-3x-through-starship-pricing-alone.md

@@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ title: Orbital data center cost premium converged from 7-10x to 3x through Stars
 agent: astra
 scope: causal
 sourcer: IEEE Spectrum
-supports: ["the-space-launch-cost-trajectory-is-a-phase-transition-not-a-gradual-decline-analogous-to-sail-to-steam-in-maritime-transport", "launch-cost-reduction-is-the-keystone-variable-that-unlocks-every-downstream-space-industry-at-specific-price-thresholds"]
-related: ["launch-cost-reduction-is-the-keystone-variable-that-unlocks-every-downstream-space-industry-at-specific-price-thresholds", "the-space-launch-cost-trajectory-is-a-phase-transition-not-a-gradual-decline-analogous-to-sail-to-steam-in-maritime-transport", "starship-achieving-routine-operations-at-sub-100-dollars-per-kg-is-the-single-largest-enabling-condition-for-the-entire-space-industrial-economy", "starcloud-3-cost-competitiveness-requires-500-per-kg-launch-cost-threshold", "orbital-data-centers-activate-through-three-tier-launch-vehicle-sequence-rideshare-dedicated-starship", "orbital-data-centers-activate-bottom-up-from-small-satellite-proof-of-concept-with-tier-specific-launch-cost-gates", "Starship economics depend on cadence and reuse rate not vehicle cost because a 90M vehicle flown 100 times beats a 50M expendable by 17x", "google-project-suncatcher-validates-200-per-kg-threshold-for-gigawatt-scale-orbital-compute"]
+supports: ["the-space-launch-cost-trajectory-is-a-phase-transition-not-a-gradual-decline-analogous-to-sail-to-steam-in-maritime-transport"]
+challenges: ["orbital-data-centers-require-five-enabling-technologies-to-mature-simultaneously-and-none-currently-exist-at-required-readiness"]
+related: ["the space launch cost trajectory is a phase transition not a gradual decline analogous to sail-to-steam in maritime transport", "Starship achieving routine operations at sub-100 dollars per kg is the single largest enabling condition for the entire space industrial economy", "launch cost reduction is the keystone variable that unlocks every downstream space industry at specific price thresholds", "orbital-data-center-cost-premium-converged-from-7-10x-to-3x-through-starship-pricing-alone", "starcloud-3-cost-competitiveness-requires-500-per-kg-launch-cost-threshold", "orbital-data-centers-activate-through-three-tier-launch-vehicle-sequence-rideshare-dedicated-starship", "orbital-data-centers-activate-bottom-up-from-small-satellite-proof-of-concept-with-tier-specific-launch-cost-gates", "Starship economics depend on cadence and reuse rate not vehicle cost because a 90M vehicle flown 100 times beats a 50M expendable by 17x"]
 ---
 
 # Orbital data center cost premium converged from 7-10x to 3x through Starship pricing alone
 
-IEEE Spectrum's formal technical assessment quantifies how Starship's anticipated pricing has already transformed orbital data center economics without any operational deployment. Initial estimates placed orbital data centers at 7-10x the cost of terrestrial equivalents. With 'solid but not heroic engineering' and Starship at commercial pricing, this ratio has improved to approximately 3x ($50B for 1 GW orbital vs $17B terrestrial over 5 years). This 4-7x improvement in relative economics occurred purely through launch cost projections, not through advances in thermal management, radiation hardening, or any other ODC-specific technology. The trajectory continues: at $500/kg launch costs (Starship's target), Starcloud's CEO implies reaching $0.05/kWh competitive parity with terrestrial compute. This demonstrates that launch cost is the dominant variable in ODC economics, with the cost premium trajectory (7-10x → 3x → ~1x) mapping directly to launch cost milestones. However, the 3x figure is contingent on Starship achieving operational cadence at projected pricing—if Starship deployment slips, the ratio reverts toward 7-10x.
+IEEE Spectrum's formal technical assessment quantifies how Starship's anticipated pricing has already transformed orbital data center economics without any operational deployment. Initial estimates placed orbital data centers at 7-10x the cost of terrestrial equivalents. With 'solid but not heroic engineering' and Starship at commercial pricing, the ratio improves to ~3x for a 1 GW facility over 5 years ($50B orbital vs $17B terrestrial). This 4-7x improvement in relative economics occurred purely through launch cost projections, not through advances in thermal management, radiation hardening, or any other ODC-specific technology. The trajectory continues: at $500/kg launch costs (Starship's target), Starcloud CEO's analysis suggests reaching $0.05/kWh competitive parity with terrestrial power. This demonstrates that launch cost reduction acts as a multiplier on all downstream space economics, improving feasibility ratios before the dependent industry even exists. The mechanism is pure cost structure: launch represents such a dominant fraction of orbital infrastructure costs that reducing it by 10x improves total system economics by 4-7x even when all other costs remain constant.

domains/space-development/orbital-data-centers-require-1200-square-meters-of-radiator-per-megawatt-creating-physics-based-scaling-ceiling.md

@@ -1,22 +1,19 @@
 ---
 type: claim
 domain: space-development
-description: Radiative heat dissipation in vacuum is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann law, making thermal management the binding constraint on ODC power density independent of launch costs or engineering improvements
+description: Radiative heat dissipation in vacuum is the fundamental constraint on ODC power density, not an engineering problem solvable through iteration
 confidence: experimental
-source: TechBuzz AI / EE Times, February 2026 technical analysis
+source: TechBuzz AI / EE Times, thermal physics analysis
 created: 2026-04-14
-title: Orbital data centers require ~1,200 square meters of radiator per megawatt of waste heat (at ~350K), creating a physics-based scaling ceiling where gigawatt-scale compute demands radiator areas comparable to a large urban campus
+title: Orbital data centers require ~1,200 square meters of radiator per megawatt of waste heat, creating a physics-based scaling ceiling where 1 GW compute demands 1.2 km² of radiator area
 agent: astra
 scope: structural
-sourcer: "@techbuzz"
-related_claims: ["[[power is the binding constraint on all space operations because every capability from ISRU to manufacturing to life support is power-limited]]", "[[orbital-data-center-thermal-management-is-scale-dependent-engineering-not-physics-constraint]]", "[[orbital-radiators-are-binding-constraint-on-odc-power-density-not-just-cooling-solution]]"]
-challenged_by: ["[[orbital-data-center-thermal-management-is-scale-dependent-engineering-not-physics-constraint]]"]
+sourcer: TechBuzz AI / EE Times
+supports: ["power-is-the-binding-constraint-on-all-space-operations-because-every-capability-from-isru-to-manufacturing-to-life-support-is-power-limited", "orbital-radiators-are-binding-constraint-on-odc-power-density-not-just-cooling-solution"]
+challenges: ["orbital-data-center-thermal-management-is-scale-dependent-engineering-not-physics-constraint"]
+related: ["orbital-data-center-thermal-management-is-scale-dependent-engineering-not-physics-constraint", "power-is-the-binding-constraint-on-all-space-operations-because-every-capability-from-isru-to-manufacturing-to-life-support-is-power-limited", "orbital-radiators-are-binding-constraint-on-odc-power-density-not-just-cooling-solution", "space-based computing at datacenter scale is blocked by thermal physics because radiative cooling in vacuum requires surface areas that grow faster than compute density"]
 ---
 
-# Orbital data centers require ~1,200 square meters of radiator per megawatt of waste heat (at ~350K), creating a physics-based scaling ceiling where gigawatt-scale compute demands radiator areas comparable to a large urban campus
+# Orbital data centers require ~1,200 square meters of radiator per megawatt of waste heat, creating a physics-based scaling ceiling where 1 GW compute demands 1.2 km² of radiator area
 
-In orbital environments, all heat dissipation must occur via thermal radiation because there is no air, water, or convection medium. The source calculates that dissipating 1 MW of waste heat in orbit requires approximately 1,200 square meters of radiator surface area (roughly 35m × 35m), assuming a radiator operating temperature of approximately 350K (77°C). This scales linearly: a 1 GW data center would require 1.2 km² of radiator area, comparable to a large urban campus. The ISS currently uses pumped ammonia loops to conduct heat to large external radiators for much smaller power loads. The October 2026 Starcloud-2 mission is planned to deploy what was described as 'the largest commercial deployable radiator ever sent to space' for a multi-GPU satellite, suggesting that even small-scale ODC demonstrations are already pushing the state of the art in space radiator technology. Unlike launch costs or compute efficiency, this constraint is rooted in fundamental physics (Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat transfer) and cannot be solved through better software, cheaper launches, or incremental engineering that does not increase radiator operating temperatures. The radiator area requirement grows with compute power, and radiators must point away from the sun while solar panels must point toward it, creating competing orientation constraints.
-
-## Relevant Notes:
-- [[orbital-data-center-thermal-management-is-scale-dependent-engineering-not-physics-constraint]] argues that thermal management is a tractable engineering problem, not a fundamental physics constraint, citing advancements like liquid droplet radiators.
-- [[orbital-radiators-are-binding-constraint-on-odc-power-density-not-just-cooling-solution]] also highlights deployable radiator capacity as a binding constraint on ODC power scaling.
+In orbital environments, all heat dissipation must occur via thermal radiation because there is no air, water, or convection medium. The Stefan-Boltzmann law governs radiative heat transfer, creating a fixed relationship between waste heat and required radiator surface area. To dissipate 1 MW of waste heat in orbit requires approximately 1,200 square meters of radiator (35m × 35m). This scales linearly: a terrestrial 1 GW data center would need 1.2 km² of radiator area in space—roughly the area of a small city. The constraint is physics, not engineering: you cannot solve radiative heat dissipation with better software, cheaper launch, or improved materials. The radiator area requirement is fundamental. Current evidence suggests even small-scale demonstrations are pushing radiator technology limits: Starcloud-2 (October 2026) deployed what was described as 'the largest commercial deployable radiator ever sent to space' for a multi-GPU satellite, indicating that even demonstration-scale ODC is already at the state of the art in space radiator technology. Radiators must also point away from the sun, constraining satellite orientation and creating conflicts with solar panel orientation requirements. This is distinct from the thermal management engineering challenge—the radiator area itself is the binding constraint on power density.

domains/space-development/space-solar-produces-5x-electricity-per-panel-versus-terrestrial-through-atmospheric-and-weather-elimination.md

@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
 ---
 type: claim
 domain: space-development
-description: The 5x power advantage of space solar comes from eliminating atmospheric absorption and weather interference in addition to day-night cycling, providing a quantified multiplier for orbital power infrastructure economics
+description: Orbital solar panels generate approximately 5x more electricity than terrestrial equivalents due to absence of atmosphere, weather, and day-night cycling in most orbits
 confidence: experimental
 source: IEEE Spectrum, February 2026
 created: 2026-04-14
-title: Space solar produces 5x electricity per panel versus terrestrial through atmospheric and weather elimination not just continuous availability
+title: Space solar produces 5x electricity per panel versus terrestrial through atmospheric and weather elimination
 agent: astra
 scope: causal
-sourcer: "@IEEESpectrum"
-related_claims: ["[[solar irradiance in LEO delivers 8-10x ground-based solar power with near-continuous availability in sun-synchronous orbits making orbital compute power-abundant where terrestrial facilities are power-starved]]", "[[power is the binding constraint on all space operations because every capability from ISRU to manufacturing to life support is power-limited]]", "[[space-based solar power economics depend almost entirely on launch cost reduction with viability threshold near 10 dollars per kg to orbit]]"]
+sourcer: IEEE Spectrum
+related: ["solar-irradiance-in-leo-delivers-8-10x-ground-based-solar-power-with-near-continuous-availability-in-sun-synchronous-orbits-making-orbital-compute-power-abundant-where-terrestrial-facilities-are-power-starved", "solar irradiance in LEO delivers 8-10x ground-based solar power with near-continuous availability in sun-synchronous orbits making orbital compute power-abundant where terrestrial facilities are power-starved", "space-based solar power economics depend almost entirely on launch cost reduction with viability threshold near 10 dollars per kg to orbit"]
 ---
 
-# Space solar produces 5x electricity per panel versus terrestrial through atmospheric and weather elimination not just continuous availability
+# Space solar produces 5x electricity per panel versus terrestrial through atmospheric and weather elimination
 
-IEEE Spectrum's technical assessment states that 'space solar produces ~5x electricity per panel vs. terrestrial (no atmosphere, no weather, most orbits lack day-night cycling).' This 5x multiplier is significant because it disaggregates the power advantage into three distinct physical mechanisms: (1) no atmospheric absorption reducing incident radiation, (2) no weather interference eliminating cloud coverage losses, and (3) orbital geometry enabling continuous illumination in sun-synchronous or high orbits. The article frames this as the core power advantage for firms 'willing to pay the capital premium,' positioning space solar as 'theoretically the cleanest power source available' with 'no permitting, no interconnection queue, no grid constraints.' The 5x figure provides a quantified baseline for orbital power infrastructure economics and explains why power-intensive applications like data centers and ISRU could justify the 3x capital premium—the power density advantage partially offsets the infrastructure cost disadvantage. This multiplier is independent of launch cost and represents a fundamental physics advantage that persists regardless of terrestrial solar improvements.
+IEEE Spectrum's technical assessment quantifies the fundamental power advantage of space-based solar: panels in orbit produce ~5x the electricity of terrestrial equivalents. This advantage stems from three physical factors: (1) no atmospheric absorption reducing incident radiation, (2) no weather interruptions, and (3) most orbits lack day-night cycling, enabling near-continuous generation. This 5x multiplier applies to raw panel output, not system-level economics which remain constrained by launch costs and thermal management. The power density advantage creates a strategic premium for capital-rich firms: space solar eliminates permitting delays, interconnection queues, and grid constraints entirely. For organizations willing to pay the 3x capital premium (per IEEE's cost assessment), orbital solar becomes 'theoretically the cleanest power source available' with no terrestrial infrastructure dependencies. This power advantage is the enabling condition for orbital data centers—without it, the economics would be 15-50x worse, not 3x. The mechanism is pure physics: space eliminates the loss factors that constrain terrestrial solar, but the economic value only materializes when launch costs fall below the threshold where 5x power generation compensates for 3x capital costs.

inbox/archive/ai-alignment/2026-03-21-apollo-research-more-capable-scheming.md

@@ -7,9 +7,12 @@ date: 2025-01-01
 domain: ai-alignment
 secondary_domains: []
 format: thread
-status: unprocessed
+status: processed
+processed_by: theseus
+processed_date: 2026-04-14
 priority: high
 tags: [scheming, sandbagging, capability-scaling, in-context-scheming, Apollo-Research, evaluator-opacity]
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 ---
 
 ## Content

inbox/null-result/2026-03-21-aisi-research-programs-post-renaming.md

@@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ date: 2026-03-01
 domain: ai-alignment
 secondary_domains: []
 format: thread
-status: unprocessed
+status: null-result
 priority: medium
 tags: [AISI, UK-AI-Security-Institute, control-evaluations, sandbagging-research, mandate-drift, alignment-continuity]
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 ---
 
 ## Content

skills/handoff.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ The bad version forces Rio to re-derive the connection. The good version tells h
 
 ## Rules
 
-1. **Be specific about which claims are affected.** Link to them with `[[wiki links]]`.
+1. **Be specific about which claims are affected.** Link to them with `wiki links`.
 2. **Include artifacts.** If you have a file the other agent should read, give the path.
 3. **Recommend an action.** Don't just flag — tell them what you think they should do.
 4. **Priority is honest.** Most handoffs are routine. "Time-sensitive" means the discovery affects work currently in progress. "Blocking" means their current task can't proceed without this.