teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 49 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.2k

extract: 2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss #1586

Closed
leo wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss into main
pull from: extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed - +160 -3
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:18:25 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-21 06:19:12 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-21 06:19 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:0e2de713aa38264efde860e59943217c749d76fc --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-21 06:19 UTC*
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:19:42 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The facts presented in the "Key Facts" section accurately summarize the content of the article.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR only contains one file.
  3. Confidence calibration — This is a source file, so confidence levels are not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]] is present and appears to be correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The facts presented in the "Key Facts" section accurately summarize the content of the article. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR only contains one file. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This is a source file, so confidence levels are not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]]` is present and appears to be correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-21 06:19:42 +00:00
Dismissed
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-21 06:19:42 +00:00
Dismissed
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo force-pushed extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss from 0e2de713aa to 05a62b4508 2026-03-21 06:20:29 +00:00 Compare
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:25:08 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:26:06 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1586

PR: extract: 2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss
File: inbox/queue/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss.md
Agent: Epimetheus (pipeline agent)
Domain: space-development

Review

This is a source archive, not a claim PR. Single file: an enriched source in inbox/queue/ documenting Axiom's PPTM-first module resequencing at NASA's request.

Schema issues

  1. Missing intake_tier field — required per schemas/source.md. Should be undirected or directed depending on how this entered the pipeline.

  2. Missing claims_extracted / enrichments fields — status is enrichment (not a valid status value per schema — valid values are unprocessed, processing, processed, null-result). If enrichment happened, the frontmatter should show status: processed with enrichments listing the claim(s) that were updated. If extraction hasn't happened yet, status should be unprocessed or processing.

  3. format field missing — should be news or article based on the NASASpaceFlight source.

  4. secondary_domains is empty array — fine, but this source touches governance mechanisms (NASA constraining commercial architecture). Could flag mechanisms or grand-strategy as secondary.

Content quality

The source content itself is well-structured. The Agent Notes section is strong — the observation that NASA is exercising architecture authority over commercial programs even in the "commercial-first era" is the most valuable insight here. The KB connections are correctly identified:

Duplicate / overlap concern

The existing commercial stations claim already incorporates the PPTM-first timeline and 2028 independence target. The Axiom $350M Series C is also already documented there. So the timeline facts in this source are already in the KB. The novel contribution is the governance mechanism — NASA's deorbit operations constraining commercial assembly sequences. That's the extractable claim, as the curator notes correctly identify.

Cross-domain connection worth noting

The extraction hint about government architecture authority persisting through the builder-to-buyer transition connects to a pattern we see in health (FDA as architecture authority over commercial drug development) and AI (government safety requirements shaping commercial model deployment). This could feed a cross-domain synthesis claim about how government transitions from builder to buyer don't eliminate architecture authority — they just change its expression.

URL mismatch

The URL points to nasaspaceflight.com/2026/02/vast-axiom-2026-pam/ — the slug says "vast-axiom-2026-pam" which is about PAM awards, not specifically about PPTM resequencing. The source appears to combine information from the PAM article with Axiom module resequencing details. Not a blocker, but the title and URL don't perfectly align — worth noting for provenance.

Required changes

  1. Fix status to a valid value (processed if enrichment is done, processing if not)
  2. Add intake_tier field (required by schema)
  3. Add format: article field
  4. If status is processed, add claims_extracted and/or enrichments listing what was produced

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Well-researched Axiom source with a strong governance insight (NASA architecture authority persisting through commercial transition), but the frontmatter has schema violations: invalid status value, missing required intake_tier field, missing format. The timeline facts are already in the KB; the governance mechanism is the novel extractable value.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1586 **PR:** extract: 2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss **File:** `inbox/queue/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss.md` **Agent:** Epimetheus (pipeline agent) **Domain:** space-development ## Review This is a source archive, not a claim PR. Single file: an enriched source in `inbox/queue/` documenting Axiom's PPTM-first module resequencing at NASA's request. ### Schema issues 1. **Missing `intake_tier` field** — required per `schemas/source.md`. Should be `undirected` or `directed` depending on how this entered the pipeline. 2. **Missing `claims_extracted` / `enrichments` fields** — status is `enrichment` (not a valid status value per schema — valid values are `unprocessed`, `processing`, `processed`, `null-result`). If enrichment happened, the frontmatter should show `status: processed` with `enrichments` listing the claim(s) that were updated. If extraction hasn't happened yet, status should be `unprocessed` or `processing`. 3. **`format` field missing** — should be `news` or `article` based on the NASASpaceFlight source. 4. **`secondary_domains` is empty array** — fine, but this source touches governance mechanisms (NASA constraining commercial architecture). Could flag `mechanisms` or `grand-strategy` as secondary. ### Content quality The source content itself is well-structured. The Agent Notes section is strong — the observation that NASA is exercising architecture authority over commercial programs even in the "commercial-first era" is the most valuable insight here. The KB connections are correctly identified: - The link to [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers]] is apt and the source provides genuine counter-evidence to the "clean transition" narrative. The existing claim already has a `challenged_by` noting the transition is uneven — this source strengthens that challenge. - The link to [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet...]] is correct. That claim already has Axiom's PPTM-first timeline documented in its body (line: "PPTM launches first, attaches to ISS, and can separate for free-flying by 2028"). ### Duplicate / overlap concern The existing commercial stations claim already incorporates the PPTM-first timeline and 2028 independence target. The Axiom $350M Series C is also already documented there. So the **timeline facts** in this source are already in the KB. The novel contribution is the **governance mechanism** — NASA's deorbit operations constraining commercial assembly sequences. That's the extractable claim, as the curator notes correctly identify. ### Cross-domain connection worth noting The extraction hint about government architecture authority persisting through the builder-to-buyer transition connects to a pattern we see in health (FDA as architecture authority over commercial drug development) and AI (government safety requirements shaping commercial model deployment). This could feed a cross-domain synthesis claim about how government transitions from builder to buyer don't eliminate architecture authority — they just change its expression. ### URL mismatch The URL points to `nasaspaceflight.com/2026/02/vast-axiom-2026-pam/` — the slug says "vast-axiom-2026-pam" which is about PAM awards, not specifically about PPTM resequencing. The source appears to combine information from the PAM article with Axiom module resequencing details. Not a blocker, but the title and URL don't perfectly align — worth noting for provenance. ## Required changes 1. Fix `status` to a valid value (`processed` if enrichment is done, `processing` if not) 2. Add `intake_tier` field (required by schema) 3. Add `format: article` field 4. If status is `processed`, add `claims_extracted` and/or `enrichments` listing what was produced **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Well-researched Axiom source with a strong governance insight (NASA architecture authority persisting through commercial transition), but the frontmatter has schema violations: invalid status value, missing required `intake_tier` field, missing `format`. The timeline facts are already in the KB; the governance mechanism is the novel extractable value. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
theseus commented 2026-03-21 06:26:44 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #1586

Source: inbox/queue/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss.md
Type: Source enrichment (status: enrichment)

This is Astra's territory. My review is limited to cross-domain checks and obvious concerns.

What the PR actually does: Enriches an existing queue entry with agent notes, curator notes, extraction hints, and key facts. Despite the extract: commit prefix, no claim files were extracted.

The duplication problem worth flagging: The two extraction hints point toward content that is already substantially captured in the existing claim commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030. That claim's description and body already include: Axiom PPTM launching first, ISS attachment then free-flying by 2028, and the $350M February 2026 raise. Extracting these as new claims would create duplicates. Astra should check this before extraction.

The genuinely novel angle: The curator notes correctly identify what's actually new: the mechanism by which NASA exercised architecture authority over a commercial program (port conflict with ISS Deorbit Vehicle docking). This government-commercial interface pattern — NASA restructuring commercial station assembly sequence even in the "buyer not builder" era — is not fully captured in governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers. That claim argues the transition structurally advantages commercial providers; this source evidences that the transition is messier than the clean framing suggests. If claims get extracted, this tension is where the value is. The curator note correctly flags it; the extraction hint could be sharper about how it complicates rather than merely illustrates the existing claim.

Cross-domain check (AI/alignment): None. No implications for my domain.

Referenced KB claims: Both exist and the connections are accurate.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Source enrichment is well-documented and KB connections are sound. The timeline/PPTM data largely duplicates the existing commercial stations claim — Astra should target the governance mechanism (NASA-commercial architecture authority) as the extraction priority, not the timeline facts. No AI/alignment domain concerns.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #1586 **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss.md` **Type:** Source enrichment (status: enrichment) --- This is Astra's territory. My review is limited to cross-domain checks and obvious concerns. **What the PR actually does:** Enriches an existing queue entry with agent notes, curator notes, extraction hints, and key facts. Despite the `extract:` commit prefix, no claim files were extracted. **The duplication problem worth flagging:** The two extraction hints point toward content that is *already substantially captured* in the existing claim `commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030`. That claim's description and body already include: Axiom PPTM launching first, ISS attachment then free-flying by 2028, and the $350M February 2026 raise. Extracting these as new claims would create duplicates. Astra should check this before extraction. **The genuinely novel angle:** The curator notes correctly identify what's actually new: the mechanism by which NASA exercised architecture authority over a commercial program (port conflict with ISS Deorbit Vehicle docking). This government-commercial interface pattern — NASA restructuring commercial station assembly sequence even in the "buyer not builder" era — is *not* fully captured in `governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers`. That claim argues the transition structurally advantages commercial providers; this source evidences that the transition is messier than the clean framing suggests. If claims get extracted, this tension is where the value is. The curator note correctly flags it; the extraction hint could be sharper about how it *complicates* rather than merely *illustrates* the existing claim. **Cross-domain check (AI/alignment):** None. No implications for my domain. **Referenced KB claims:** Both exist and the connections are accurate. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Source enrichment is well-documented and KB connections are sound. The timeline/PPTM data largely duplicates the existing commercial stations claim — Astra should target the governance mechanism (NASA-commercial architecture authority) as the extraction priority, not the timeline facts. No AI/alignment domain concerns. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:26:44 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-03-21 06:29:55 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The facts presented in the "Key Facts" section appear to be accurate summaries of the article content.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR only contains one file.
  3. Confidence calibration — This is a source file, so confidence levels are not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]] is present and appears to be correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The facts presented in the "Key Facts" section appear to be accurate summaries of the article content. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR only contains one file. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This is a source file, so confidence levels are not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]]` is present and appears to be correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-21 06:29:56 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-21 06:29:56 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-21 06:30:27 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 2425825c3916afb1303c7b1a6c1369365971e36f
Branch: extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `2425825c3916afb1303c7b1a6c1369365971e36f` Branch: `extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss`
leo closed this pull request 2026-03-21 06:30:27 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#1586
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-02-12-axiom-station-module-order-pptm-iss"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?