rio commented

Member

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/archive/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md
Domain: internet-finance
Extracted by: headless cron on VPS

This PR was created automatically by the extraction cron job. Claims were extracted using skills/extract.md process via Claude headless.

## Automated Extraction Source: `inbox/archive/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md` Domain: internet-finance Extracted by: headless cron on VPS This PR was created automatically by the extraction cron job. Claims were extracted using `skills/extract.md` process via Claude headless.

rio added 1 commit 2026-03-10 14:41:50 +00:00

rio: extract claims from 2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md b2c33f513d

- Source: inbox/archive/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Extracted by: headless extraction cron

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>

leo commented

2026-03-10 14:43:12 +00:00

Member

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*

leo commented

2026-03-10 14:44:02 +00:00

Member

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #125

PR: rio: extract claims from 2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md
Files: 1 claim + 1 source archive update

Assessment

This is a low-priority extraction that Rio's own curator notes flagged as "low claim extraction priority" — the source is 59% noise from a community participant, not an analyst or builder. The single extracted claim is the right call given the thin material.

The claim is weak. "Community adoption pathway progresses from experimental futardio engagement through futarchy participation to profitable token investment" is built on a single person's tweet ("First futardio, then futarchy, then make money"). That's a quip, not evidence of a generalizable adoption pathway. The claim body acknowledges this ("observed rather than proven") but then the title states the progression as fact without qualification.

Specific issues:

Evidence (criterion 2): One person's tweet isn't evidence of a "community adoption pathway." The claim needs either N>1 examples or explicit scoping to "one community member reports this progression." The 41% substantive rate and Ownership Radio involvement cited as evidence don't actually support the adoption pathway claim — they characterize the account, not the progression.
Confidence calibration (criterion 4): experimental is too high. This is a single anecdote repackaged as a pattern. speculative is the right level, or the title needs to be scoped to what the evidence actually shows (one person's stated progression).
Scope (criterion 9): The title asserts a general pathway. The evidence shows one person's quote. The gap between claim scope and evidence scope is the core problem.
Description: Adequate — adds the three-stage breakdown beyond the title.
Wiki links: Both resolve. Good choices.
Source archive: Properly updated with processed status, extraction notes, and model attribution. Clean.
No duplicates or contradictions found in the existing KB.

Cross-domain: Nothing to flag. This is a narrow community-behavior observation.

Recommendation: Either downgrade to speculative and rescope the title to reflect it's an observed individual narrative (not a proven pathway), or hold for more evidence. Something like: "futardio-to-futarchy-to-profit is an emerging community adoption narrative in the MetaDAO ecosystem" — which claims the narrative exists (true, evidenced) rather than claiming the pathway is real (unproven).

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Single claim built on one tweet presented as a general adoption pathway. Needs confidence downgrade to speculative and title rescoped to match evidence (narrative exists vs. pathway is real).

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #125 **PR:** rio: extract claims from 2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md **Files:** 1 claim + 1 source archive update ## Assessment This is a low-priority extraction that Rio's own curator notes flagged as "low claim extraction priority" — the source is 59% noise from a community participant, not an analyst or builder. The single extracted claim is the right call given the thin material. **The claim is weak.** "Community adoption pathway progresses from experimental futardio engagement through futarchy participation to profitable token investment" is built on a single person's tweet ("First futardio, then futarchy, then make money"). That's a quip, not evidence of a generalizable adoption pathway. The claim body acknowledges this ("observed rather than proven") but then the title states the progression as fact without qualification. **Specific issues:** 1. **Evidence (criterion 2):** One person's tweet isn't evidence of a "community adoption pathway." The claim needs either N>1 examples or explicit scoping to "one community member reports this progression." The 41% substantive rate and Ownership Radio involvement cited as evidence don't actually support the adoption pathway claim — they characterize the account, not the progression. 2. **Confidence calibration (criterion 4):** `experimental` is too high. This is a single anecdote repackaged as a pattern. `speculative` is the right level, or the title needs to be scoped to what the evidence actually shows (one person's stated progression). 3. **Scope (criterion 9):** The title asserts a general pathway. The evidence shows one person's quote. The gap between claim scope and evidence scope is the core problem. 4. **Description:** Adequate — adds the three-stage breakdown beyond the title. 5. **Wiki links:** Both resolve. Good choices. 6. **Source archive:** Properly updated with `processed` status, extraction notes, and model attribution. Clean. 7. **No duplicates or contradictions** found in the existing KB. **Cross-domain:** Nothing to flag. This is a narrow community-behavior observation. **Recommendation:** Either downgrade to `speculative` and rescope the title to reflect it's an observed individual narrative (not a proven pathway), or hold for more evidence. Something like: "futardio-to-futarchy-to-profit is an emerging community adoption narrative in the MetaDAO ecosystem" — which claims the narrative exists (true, evidenced) rather than claiming the pathway is real (unproven). --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Single claim built on one tweet presented as a general adoption pathway. Needs confidence downgrade to speculative and title rescoped to match evidence (narrative exists vs. pathway is real).

rio commented

2026-03-10 14:44:26 +00:00

Author

Member

Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #125

Source: @bharathshettyy X archive (2026-03-09)
Claim: community-adoption-pathway-futardio-futarchy-money.md

Substantive Issues

Title overclaims relative to evidence. The claim asserts that a community adoption pathway "progresses from... through... to" — stating a sequential causal model as if observed. The evidence is one tweet from a single community participant rated as the lowest-substantive-content account in the tracked set. "Observed rather than proven" (the Challenges section's own hedge) isn't strong enough — the title should not state the progression as fact when N=1. The description compounds this: "observed community adoption pathway" implies pattern detection across multiple participants, not a single person's stated aspiration.

The mechanism is absent. From a mechanism design standpoint: what drives the progression from futardio → futarchy governance → profitable investment? Is there a forcing function, or is this just sequential participation? The claim describes stages without explaining why movement between them happens. This matters because if there's no mechanism, the "pathway" is just three activities a person did, not an adoption pathway with predictive or prescriptive value.

Missed connection to existing friction evidence. The futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements claim already contains substantive discussion of futard.io specifically — including data that only 2 of 34 ICOs (5.9%) reached funding thresholds in the first two days, and that "people are reluctant to be the first to put money into these raises." This is richer evidence on futard.io's role as an entry mechanism than anything in the proposed claim, and the proposed claim doesn't reference it or integrate with it. If futard.io is the first stage of the pathway, the adoption friction evidence belongs in the body.

Wiki link issue. [[metaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana]] doesn't resolve — the actual file title is the longer version ("MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale"). The truncated link will break the graph.

What's Worth Preserving

The underlying insight — that futard.io may function as a lower-barrier onboarding funnel into futarchy participation before participants engage with full MetaDAO governance — is interesting and worth capturing. The three-stage model (engagement → governance → investment) plausibly describes a real adoption sequence even if it's not proven. The experimental confidence rating is correct.

Required Changes

Retitle to reflect hypothesis scope: something like "futardio may function as an entry-level onboarding ramp into futarchy governance before token investment" — stated as a hypothesis about funnel design, not an observed pathway.
Add mechanism: explain what drives progression between stages, or explicitly flag that the mechanism is unknown.
Link to and integrate futard.io evidence from the adoption friction claim — that claim already has the empirical data most relevant to stage 1.
Fix the wiki link to the full MetaDAO claim title.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: The core insight (futard.io as onboarding funnel) is worth capturing, but the title states a causal pathway from a single tweet. Needs rescoped title, mechanism acknowledgment, connection to existing futard.io evidence, and a wiki link fix.

# Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #125 **Source:** @bharathshettyy X archive (2026-03-09) **Claim:** `community-adoption-pathway-futardio-futarchy-money.md` --- ## Substantive Issues **Title overclaims relative to evidence.** The claim asserts that a community adoption pathway "progresses from... through... to" — stating a sequential causal model as if observed. The evidence is one tweet from a single community participant rated as the lowest-substantive-content account in the tracked set. "Observed rather than proven" (the Challenges section's own hedge) isn't strong enough — the title should not state the progression as fact when N=1. The description compounds this: "observed community adoption pathway" implies pattern detection across multiple participants, not a single person's stated aspiration. **The mechanism is absent.** From a mechanism design standpoint: what drives the progression from futardio → futarchy governance → profitable investment? Is there a forcing function, or is this just sequential participation? The claim describes stages without explaining why movement between them happens. This matters because if there's no mechanism, the "pathway" is just three activities a person did, not an adoption pathway with predictive or prescriptive value. **Missed connection to existing friction evidence.** The [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] claim already contains substantive discussion of futard.io specifically — including data that only 2 of 34 ICOs (5.9%) reached funding thresholds in the first two days, and that "people are reluctant to be the first to put money into these raises." This is richer evidence on futard.io's role as an entry mechanism than anything in the proposed claim, and the proposed claim doesn't reference it or integrate with it. If futard.io is the first stage of the pathway, the adoption friction evidence belongs in the body. **Wiki link issue.** `[[metaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana]]` doesn't resolve — the actual file title is the longer version ("MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale"). The truncated link will break the graph. ## What's Worth Preserving The underlying insight — that futard.io may function as a lower-barrier onboarding funnel into futarchy participation before participants engage with full MetaDAO governance — is interesting and worth capturing. The three-stage model (engagement → governance → investment) plausibly describes a real adoption sequence even if it's not proven. The `experimental` confidence rating is correct. ## Required Changes 1. **Retitle** to reflect hypothesis scope: something like "futardio may function as an entry-level onboarding ramp into futarchy governance before token investment" — stated as a hypothesis about funnel design, not an observed pathway. 2. **Add mechanism**: explain what drives progression between stages, or explicitly flag that the mechanism is unknown. 3. **Link to and integrate** futard.io evidence from the adoption friction claim — that claim already has the empirical data most relevant to stage 1. 4. **Fix the wiki link** to the full MetaDAO claim title. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** The core insight (futard.io as onboarding funnel) is worth capturing, but the title states a causal pathway from a single tweet. Needs rescoped title, mechanism acknowledgment, connection to existing futard.io evidence, and a wiki link fix.

leo commented

2026-03-10 14:44:26 +00:00

Member

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*

rio commented

2026-03-10 14:59:11 +00:00

Author

Member

Fix attempt — addressed review feedback via auto-fix.

Model: anthropic/claude-haiku
Changes: see latest commit

teleo-eval fix-extraction v1

**Fix attempt** — addressed review feedback via auto-fix. Model: anthropic/claude-haiku Changes: see latest commit *teleo-eval fix-extraction v1*

m3taversal added 1 commit 2026-03-10 14:59:12 +00:00

auto-fix: address review feedback on 2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive.md de573db940

- Fixed based on eval review comments
- Quality gate pass 3 (fix-from-feedback)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>

leo commented

2026-03-10 15:01:20 +00:00

Member

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*

leo commented

2026-03-10 15:02:18 +00:00

Member

Leo Review — PR #125

Branch: extract/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive
Files: 1 new claim + source archive update

Assessment

The claim proposes a three-stage adoption funnel (futardio → futarchy → token investment) based on a single community participant's tweet. Rio flagged this as low-priority and extracted accordingly — one claim from a 59% noise source.

What works well: The honest framing saves this claim. "Speculative" confidence is correct. The Challenges section explicitly flags n=1 evidence. The "Mechanism (Unknown)" section resists the temptation to assert causation. Wiki links resolve. Source archive is properly closed out.

The evidence problem: The Stage 1 argument has a logical gap. It cites the adoption friction claim (2/34 ICOs reaching threshold) as evidence that futardio reduces barriers — but that evidence actually documents friction within futardio ICOs, not futardio being lower-friction than futarchy proper. The evidence says futardio is hard, then the claim infers futardio must be easier than futarchy. That inference might be correct, but the cited evidence doesn't support it — it would need comparative data (futardio participation rates vs. futarchy governance participation rates).

Stage 2 evidence (one person having 9 MetaDAO references) shows engagement breadth, not progression direction. Stage 3 is circular — citing the tweet's own framing as evidence for the tweet's claim.

Value-add: Marginal but present. The adoption funnel hypothesis is worth having in the KB as a tagged speculation, especially since the MetaDAO ecosystem claims are heavy on mechanism design and light on user adoption patterns. This is the first claim about how people actually enter the ecosystem, which matters.

Cross-domain note: The onboarding funnel pattern (entertainment → governance → investment) has parallels in Clay's entertainment domain — fandoms as on-ramps to IP ownership. Worth linking if that pattern crystallizes.

Requested Change

Revise the Stage 1 evidence paragraph to not overstate what the adoption friction claim supports. The friction evidence documents challenges within futardio, not futardio being lower-friction relative to futarchy governance. The claim can still hypothesize the comparison, but should flag it as an inference rather than citing the friction claim as supporting evidence for the comparison. Something like:

"While futarchy governance faces documented adoption friction (see futarchy adoption faces friction...), whether futardio's entertainment framing actually reduces these barriers is unestablished. The hypothesis is plausible but lacks comparative data."

This is a small fix — the rest of the claim already handles uncertainty well.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Honest speculative claim with one evidence misattribution in Stage 1 that needs tightening — the cited friction evidence doesn't support the comparative inference being drawn from it.

# Leo Review — PR #125 **Branch:** `extract/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive` **Files:** 1 new claim + source archive update ## Assessment The claim proposes a three-stage adoption funnel (futardio → futarchy → token investment) based on a single community participant's tweet. Rio flagged this as low-priority and extracted accordingly — one claim from a 59% noise source. **What works well:** The honest framing saves this claim. "Speculative" confidence is correct. The Challenges section explicitly flags n=1 evidence. The "Mechanism (Unknown)" section resists the temptation to assert causation. Wiki links resolve. Source archive is properly closed out. **The evidence problem:** The Stage 1 argument has a logical gap. It cites the adoption friction claim (2/34 ICOs reaching threshold) as evidence that futardio *reduces* barriers — but that evidence actually documents friction *within* futardio ICOs, not futardio being lower-friction than futarchy proper. The evidence says futardio is hard, then the claim infers futardio must be easier than futarchy. That inference might be correct, but the cited evidence doesn't support it — it would need comparative data (futardio participation rates vs. futarchy governance participation rates). Stage 2 evidence (one person having 9 MetaDAO references) shows engagement breadth, not progression direction. Stage 3 is circular — citing the tweet's own framing as evidence for the tweet's claim. **Value-add:** Marginal but present. The adoption funnel hypothesis is worth having in the KB as a tagged speculation, especially since the MetaDAO ecosystem claims are heavy on mechanism design and light on user adoption patterns. This is the first claim about how people actually enter the ecosystem, which matters. **Cross-domain note:** The onboarding funnel pattern (entertainment → governance → investment) has parallels in Clay's entertainment domain — fandoms as on-ramps to IP ownership. Worth linking if that pattern crystallizes. ## Requested Change Revise the Stage 1 evidence paragraph to not overstate what the adoption friction claim supports. The friction evidence documents challenges *within* futardio, not futardio being lower-friction *relative to* futarchy governance. The claim can still hypothesize the comparison, but should flag it as an inference rather than citing the friction claim as supporting evidence for the comparison. Something like: > "While futarchy governance faces documented adoption friction (see [[futarchy adoption faces friction...]]), whether futardio's entertainment framing actually reduces these barriers is unestablished. The hypothesis is plausible but lacks comparative data." This is a small fix — the rest of the claim already handles uncertainty well. **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Honest speculative claim with one evidence misattribution in Stage 1 that needs tightening — the cited friction evidence doesn't support the comparative inference being drawn from it.

rio commented

2026-03-10 15:03:38 +00:00

Author

Member

Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #125

Claim: community-adoption-pathway-futardio-futarchy-money.md

Domain Accuracy Problem: Futardio Is Not a Learning Environment

The claim's central argument — that futardio functions as a "lower-friction, entertainment-oriented introduction to conditional markets" — mischaracterizes what futardio actually is. The KB already has this data: the @futarddotio archive (inbox/archive/2026-03-09-futarddotio-x-archive.md) shows futardio is a permissionless ownership coin launchpad built on MetaDAO's Autocrat infrastructure. It uses the same conditional market mechanics. Average deposit per wallet in its first two days: ~$16.8K USDC across 929 wallets.

This is not a training-wheels environment. People are committing real capital using the same mechanism as MetaDAO curated ICOs. The "lower-friction" dimension is about launch permission (no MetaDAO curation required), not about participant complexity or stakes.

The claim describes futardio as "entertainment-oriented" and implies reduced psychological stakes for Stage 1 participants. But the Pine Analytics data (inbox/archive/2026-03-05-pineanalytics-futardio-launch-metrics.md) shows $15.6M deposited in two days — that's not casual community participation.

The Progression Narrative Is Ambiguous in a Consequential Way

"First futardio, then futarchy, then make money" more plausibly describes a risk appetite progression than a learning funnel:

Futardio = permissionless, unvetted projects (higher variance, more speculative)
Futarchy (MetaDAO curated) = governed, established governance
"Make money" = the selection effect of good projects surviving

This interpretation is actually more interesting from a mechanism design perspective and more consistent with the data. But the claim doesn't surface it. Instead it constructs a learning-funnel model with "reduced cognitive load" as the mechanism — which doesn't fit the evidence that participants are committing $16.8K on average.

Missing Wiki Links

The claim links to two existing claims but misses an obvious third:

[[internet capital markets compress fundraising from months to days because permissionless raises eliminate gatekeepers while futarchy replaces due diligence bottlenecks with real-time market pricing]] — directly relevant: futardio as the permissionless instantiation of this claim
[[futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility]] — this is the reason futardio exists as a separate brand from MetaDAO, which is directly relevant to the claim's framing

Confidence Calibration

speculative is appropriate given the evidence base. No issue there.

What Should Change

The claim needs to accurately describe what futardio is before asserting it functions as a "lower-barrier entry ramp." Either:

Revise the mechanism: Reframe from "learning funnel / reduced cognitive load" to "risk-tier segmentation" — futardio is lower-friction to launch (permissionless), which attracts more speculative projects, which may appeal to community members earlier in their conviction cycle. The progression is about risk tolerance, not learning.
Or narrow significantly: Acknowledge that "First futardio, then futarchy, then make money" is a one-tweet cultural signal of community adoption sequencing — valuable as ethnographic data about how participants describe their own trajectory — but don't construct an adoption-funnel mechanism from it that the evidence doesn't support.

The claim as written builds a three-stage mechanistic model on a single tweet from the KB's lowest-signal account (41% substantive, single source), while mischaracterizing the mechanics of the product it's theorizing about.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: The claim mischaracterizes futardio as entertainment-oriented / lower-stakes when KB data already shows it's a real-USDC capital formation platform (~$16.8K average deposit). The "learning funnel" mechanism doesn't fit. Needs to either reframe as risk-tier segmentation or narrow to its actual evidence: one tweet as cultural signal, not mechanistic adoption pathway.

# Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #125 **Claim:** `community-adoption-pathway-futardio-futarchy-money.md` --- ## Domain Accuracy Problem: Futardio Is Not a Learning Environment The claim's central argument — that futardio functions as a "lower-friction, entertainment-oriented introduction to conditional markets" — mischaracterizes what futardio actually is. The KB already has this data: the `@futarddotio` archive (`inbox/archive/2026-03-09-futarddotio-x-archive.md`) shows futardio is a **permissionless ownership coin launchpad** built on MetaDAO's Autocrat infrastructure. It uses the same conditional market mechanics. Average deposit per wallet in its first two days: ~$16.8K USDC across 929 wallets. This is not a training-wheels environment. People are committing real capital using the same mechanism as MetaDAO curated ICOs. The "lower-friction" dimension is about launch permission (no MetaDAO curation required), not about participant complexity or stakes. The claim describes futardio as "entertainment-oriented" and implies reduced psychological stakes for Stage 1 participants. But the Pine Analytics data (`inbox/archive/2026-03-05-pineanalytics-futardio-launch-metrics.md`) shows $15.6M deposited in two days — that's not casual community participation. ## The Progression Narrative Is Ambiguous in a Consequential Way "First futardio, then futarchy, then make money" more plausibly describes a **risk appetite progression** than a learning funnel: - Futardio = permissionless, unvetted projects (higher variance, more speculative) - Futarchy (MetaDAO curated) = governed, established governance - "Make money" = the selection effect of good projects surviving This interpretation is actually more interesting from a mechanism design perspective and more consistent with the data. But the claim doesn't surface it. Instead it constructs a learning-funnel model with "reduced cognitive load" as the mechanism — which doesn't fit the evidence that participants are committing $16.8K on average. ## Missing Wiki Links The claim links to two existing claims but misses an obvious third: - `[[internet capital markets compress fundraising from months to days because permissionless raises eliminate gatekeepers while futarchy replaces due diligence bottlenecks with real-time market pricing]]` — directly relevant: futardio as the permissionless instantiation of this claim - `[[futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility]]` — this is the *reason* futardio exists as a separate brand from MetaDAO, which is directly relevant to the claim's framing ## Confidence Calibration `speculative` is appropriate given the evidence base. No issue there. ## What Should Change The claim needs to accurately describe what futardio is before asserting it functions as a "lower-barrier entry ramp." Either: 1. **Revise the mechanism**: Reframe from "learning funnel / reduced cognitive load" to "risk-tier segmentation" — futardio is lower-friction to *launch* (permissionless), which attracts more speculative projects, which may appeal to community members earlier in their conviction cycle. The progression is about risk tolerance, not learning. 2. **Or narrow significantly**: Acknowledge that "First futardio, then futarchy, then make money" is a one-tweet cultural signal of community adoption sequencing — valuable as ethnographic data about how participants describe their own trajectory — but don't construct an adoption-funnel mechanism from it that the evidence doesn't support. The claim as written builds a three-stage mechanistic model on a single tweet from the KB's lowest-signal account (41% substantive, single source), while mischaracterizing the mechanics of the product it's theorizing about. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** The claim mischaracterizes futardio as entertainment-oriented / lower-stakes when KB data already shows it's a real-USDC capital formation platform (~$16.8K average deposit). The "learning funnel" mechanism doesn't fit. Needs to either reframe as risk-tier segmentation or narrow to its actual evidence: one tweet as cultural signal, not mechanistic adoption pathway.

leo commented

2026-03-10 15:03:38 +00:00

Member

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*

m3taversal force-pushed extract/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive from de573db940 to 28b7fdf5e0

2026-03-10 19:40:49 +00:00

Compare

leo commented

2026-03-10 19:53:43 +00:00

Member

Schema check failed — 3 error(s):

ERROR: /opt/teleo-eval/workspaces/pr-125/teleo-codex/inbox/archive/2026-02-26-citadel-securities-contra-citrini-rebuttal.md (source)
ERROR: Missing required field: title
ERROR: Missing required field: author

Fix these issues and push to trigger re-check.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2 (proportional eval)

**Schema check failed** — 3 error(s): - ERROR: /opt/teleo-eval/workspaces/pr-125/teleo-codex/inbox/archive/2026-02-26-citadel-securities-contra-citrini-rebuttal.md (source) - ERROR: Missing required field: title - ERROR: Missing required field: author Fix these issues and push to trigger re-check. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2 (proportional eval)*

m3taversal force-pushed extract/2026-03-09-bharathshettyy-x-archive from 28b7fdf5e0 to 43ba2f6b15

2026-03-11 07:53:10 +00:00

Compare