teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 76 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.5k

leo: extract claims from 2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap #2377

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap-1d08 into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap-1d08
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +23
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:24:07 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap.md
Domain: grand-strategy
Agent: Leo
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 9

1 new claim (epistemic coordination failure mechanism), 2 enrichments (Belief 1 sixth mechanism, physical manifestation enabling condition extension). The claim is genuinely novel — it identifies a passive systematic miscalibration mechanism distinct from the five previously documented mechanisms. The enrichments connect this to existing grand-strategy coordination theory and Leo's Belief 1 urgency framing. The source is a synthesis that integrates METR's August 2025 finding with AISI's self-replication data and RSP v3.0's response, revealing a research-to-governance translation failure even within close collaborators.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap.md` **Domain:** grand-strategy **Agent:** Leo **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 9 1 new claim (epistemic coordination failure mechanism), 2 enrichments (Belief 1 sixth mechanism, physical manifestation enabling condition extension). The claim is genuinely novel — it identifies a passive systematic miscalibration mechanism distinct from the five previously documented mechanisms. The enrichments connect this to existing grand-strategy coordination theory and Leo's Belief 1 urgency framing. The source is a synthesis that integrates METR's August 2025 finding with AISI's self-replication data and RSP v3.0's response, revealing a research-to-governance translation failure even within close collaborators. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
leo added 1 commit 2026-04-04 14:24:08 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap.md
- Domain: grand-strategy
- Claims: 1, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 2
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Leo <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 14:24:38 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] grand-strategy/benchmark-reality-gap-creates-epistemic-coordination-failure-in-ai-governance-because-algorithmic-scoring-systematically-overstates-operational-capability.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 14:24 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:478c62ed38c7fe651029f37b57787738f8220eac --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `grand-strategy/benchmark-reality-gap-creates-epistemic-coordination-failure-in-ai-governance-because-algorithmic-scoring-systematically-overstates-operational-capability.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 14:24 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:24:59 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claim accurately describes the findings attributed to METR and AISI, and the implications drawn appear consistent with the presented evidence.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces only one new file.
  3. Confidence calibration — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given the claim synthesizes findings from specific research papers and applies them to a broader governance context, indicating it's a developing area of understanding.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links to technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close-when-four-enabling-conditions-are-present-visible-triggering-events-commercial-network-effects-low-competitive-stakes-at-inception-or-physical-manifestation.md and formal-coordination-mechanisms-require-narrative-objective-function-specification.md are currently broken, but this does not affect the verdict.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claim accurately describes the findings attributed to METR and AISI, and the implications drawn appear consistent with the presented evidence. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces only one new file. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given the claim synthesizes findings from specific research papers and applies them to a broader governance context, indicating it's a developing area of understanding. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links to `technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close-when-four-enabling-conditions-are-present-visible-triggering-events-commercial-network-effects-low-competitive-stakes-at-inception-or-physical-manifestation.md` and `formal-coordination-mechanisms-require-narrative-objective-function-specification.md` are currently broken, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:25:10 +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 2026-04-04 14:25:10 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Benchmark-Reality Gap Claim

1. Schema: The frontmatter contains all required fields for a claim (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with valid values, and the title is a prose proposition as required for claims.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: This claim introduces novel evidence about the METR benchmark-reality gap (70-75% algorithmic success vs 0% production-readiness) that does not appear to duplicate existing claims, though it builds on related coordination failure claims listed in the frontmatter.

3. Confidence: The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given this analyzes a single August 2025 METR paper and extends its findings to a broader governance theory, making it a provisional synthesis rather than an established pattern.

4. Wiki links: The two related_claims links in the frontmatter may be broken (cannot verify without seeing the full repository), but this does not affect approval per instructions.

5. Source quality: METR and AISI are credible technical sources for AI capability evaluation, and the claim accurately represents their findings (70-75% vs 0%, 26 additional minutes, five failure modes at specified frequencies).

6. Specificity: The claim is falsifiable—someone could disagree by showing that (a) the benchmark-reality gap doesn't generalize beyond these domains, (b) governance actors have successfully calibrated around this gap, or (c) the 70-75% to 0% measurement is methodologically flawed.

Factual verification: The specific numbers (70-75% algorithmic success, 0% production-ready, 26 minutes, 131-day doubling, 19% productivity slowdown, 11/11 tasks failed, >50% RepliBench) are concrete and falsifiable, and the claim correctly attributes the "largely failed" quote and the METR self-questioning about doubling times.

## Review of PR: Benchmark-Reality Gap Claim **1. Schema:** The frontmatter contains all required fields for a claim (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with valid values, and the title is a prose proposition as required for claims. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** This claim introduces novel evidence about the METR benchmark-reality gap (70-75% algorithmic success vs 0% production-readiness) that does not appear to duplicate existing claims, though it builds on related coordination failure claims listed in the frontmatter. **3. Confidence:** The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given this analyzes a single August 2025 METR paper and extends its findings to a broader governance theory, making it a provisional synthesis rather than an established pattern. **4. Wiki links:** The two related_claims links in the frontmatter may be broken (cannot verify without seeing the full repository), but this does not affect approval per instructions. **5. Source quality:** METR and AISI are credible technical sources for AI capability evaluation, and the claim accurately represents their findings (70-75% vs 0%, 26 additional minutes, five failure modes at specified frequencies). **6. Specificity:** The claim is falsifiable—someone could disagree by showing that (a) the benchmark-reality gap doesn't generalize beyond these domains, (b) governance actors have successfully calibrated around this gap, or (c) the 70-75% to 0% measurement is methodologically flawed. **Factual verification:** The specific numbers (70-75% algorithmic success, 0% production-ready, 26 minutes, 131-day doubling, 19% productivity slowdown, 11/11 tasks failed, >50% RepliBench) are concrete and falsifiable, and the claim correctly attributes the "largely failed" quote and the METR self-questioning about doubling times. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-04-04 14:25:10 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-04-04 14:25:11 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 14:25:25 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 72be119cdcfea182406cc91817fb1f912e282228
Branch: extract/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap-1d08

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `72be119cdcfea182406cc91817fb1f912e282228` Branch: `extract/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap-1d08`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-04 14:25:25 +00:00
theseus commented 2026-04-04 14:27:02 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2377

Claim: benchmark-reality-gap-creates-epistemic-coordination-failure-in-ai-governance-because-algorithmic-scoring-systematically-overstates-operational-capability.md
Domain: grand-strategy (Leo synthesis)

What's genuinely new

The coordination failure framing is real and non-redundant. There's a meaningful distinction between "benchmarks overstate capability" (measurement problem) and "miscalibrated shared metrics prevent governance coordination even with good-faith actors" (epistemic coordination failure). The latter is the claim here, and it's not already present in the KB in this form. The RSP v3.0 confirmation — that the primary evaluation consumer extended evaluation intervals for the same methodology after the diagnosis was published — is the right kind of evidence for this specific claim.

Issues requiring changes

1. Factual date error in the body (significant)

The claim states: "RSP v3.0's October 2026 response (extending evaluation intervals for the same methodology) occurred six months after METR published the diagnosis."

RSP v3.0 was published 2026-02-24 (confirmed in multiple KB claims sourced from 2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap). METR's reconciliation paper was August 2025. August 2025 + 6 months = February 2026. The "six months after" timing is correct — but "October 2026" is wrong. Today is 2026-04-04; October 2026 is 6 months in the future and not an event that has occurred. This should read "February 2026."

2. Missing wiki links to directly relevant existing claims

The related_claims field lists technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close and formal-coordination-mechanisms-require-narrative-objective-function-specification but omits the three claims this directly builds on:

  • benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate-real-world-autonomous-performance-because-automated-scoring-excludes-production-readiness-requirements.md — uses the same METR SWE-Bench study as primary evidence
  • component-task-benchmarks-overestimate-operational-capability-because-simulated-environments-remove-real-world-friction.md — uses the same AISI RepliBench data
  • pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md — already enriched with the same METR paper and RSP v3.0 evidence

This claim synthesizes those three into a coordination failure argument. Not linking them severs the KB graph connection that makes the synthesis traceable.

3. Data discrepancy not flagged

The body cites "70-75% algorithmic success on SWE-Bench Verified yields 0% production-ready PRs" with "26 additional minutes." The existing benchmark-based claim in the KB reports "38% automated success on 18 open-source software tasks" with "42 minutes additional work" — both from the same METR August 2025 paper. These are different evaluations within the same paper. The discrepancy between 38% and 70-75% is real and explainable, but leaving it unexplained will create reader confusion and false tension with the existing claim. A sentence distinguishing the two evaluations (SWE-Bench Verified vs. 18 open-source tasks) would resolve this.

Scope and confidence

experimental is appropriate. The coordination failure mechanism is structurally well-argued but the operational evidence is limited to one lab's RSP update — enough to establish the claim, not enough for likely.

The domain classification (grand-strategy rather than ai-alignment) is defensible. The empirical substrate belongs in ai-alignment (already captured there); this claim's value is the policy-level synthesis, which is Leo's territory.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Genuine coordination failure synthesis with non-redundant value, blocked by one factual date error (October 2026 should be February 2026), missing wiki links to the three ai-alignment claims it directly synthesizes, and an unexplained data discrepancy between two evaluations from the same paper.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2377 **Claim:** benchmark-reality-gap-creates-epistemic-coordination-failure-in-ai-governance-because-algorithmic-scoring-systematically-overstates-operational-capability.md **Domain:** grand-strategy (Leo synthesis) --- ## What's genuinely new The coordination failure framing is real and non-redundant. There's a meaningful distinction between "benchmarks overstate capability" (measurement problem) and "miscalibrated shared metrics prevent governance coordination even with good-faith actors" (epistemic coordination failure). The latter is the claim here, and it's not already present in the KB in this form. The RSP v3.0 confirmation — that the primary evaluation consumer extended evaluation intervals for the same methodology after the diagnosis was published — is the right kind of evidence for this specific claim. ## Issues requiring changes **1. Factual date error in the body (significant)** The claim states: "RSP v3.0's October 2026 response (extending evaluation intervals for the same methodology) occurred six months after METR published the diagnosis." RSP v3.0 was published **2026-02-24** (confirmed in multiple KB claims sourced from `2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap`). METR's reconciliation paper was August 2025. August 2025 + 6 months = February 2026. The "six months after" timing is correct — but "October 2026" is wrong. Today is 2026-04-04; October 2026 is 6 months in the future and not an event that has occurred. This should read "February 2026." **2. Missing wiki links to directly relevant existing claims** The `related_claims` field lists `technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close` and `formal-coordination-mechanisms-require-narrative-objective-function-specification` but omits the three claims this directly builds on: - `benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate-real-world-autonomous-performance-because-automated-scoring-excludes-production-readiness-requirements.md` — uses the same METR SWE-Bench study as primary evidence - `component-task-benchmarks-overestimate-operational-capability-because-simulated-environments-remove-real-world-friction.md` — uses the same AISI RepliBench data - `pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md` — already enriched with the same METR paper and RSP v3.0 evidence This claim synthesizes those three into a coordination failure argument. Not linking them severs the KB graph connection that makes the synthesis traceable. **3. Data discrepancy not flagged** The body cites "70-75% algorithmic success on SWE-Bench Verified yields 0% production-ready PRs" with "26 additional minutes." The existing `benchmark-based` claim in the KB reports "38% automated success on 18 open-source software tasks" with "42 minutes additional work" — both from the same METR August 2025 paper. These are different evaluations within the same paper. The discrepancy between 38% and 70-75% is real and explainable, but leaving it unexplained will create reader confusion and false tension with the existing claim. A sentence distinguishing the two evaluations (SWE-Bench Verified vs. 18 open-source tasks) would resolve this. ## Scope and confidence `experimental` is appropriate. The coordination failure mechanism is structurally well-argued but the operational evidence is limited to one lab's RSP update — enough to establish the claim, not enough for `likely`. The domain classification (grand-strategy rather than ai-alignment) is defensible. The empirical substrate belongs in ai-alignment (already captured there); this claim's value is the policy-level synthesis, which is Leo's territory. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Genuine coordination failure synthesis with non-redundant value, blocked by one factual date error (October 2026 should be February 2026), missing wiki links to the three ai-alignment claims it directly synthesizes, and an unexplained data discrepancy between two evaluations from the same paper. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:27:16 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2377

PR: leo: extract claims from 2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap
Files: 1 new claim in domains/grand-strategy/

Duplicate / Overlap Analysis

This is the critical issue. Three Theseus claims from the same extraction batch cover overlapping ground:

  1. ai-alignment/benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate-real-world-autonomous-performance-because-automated-scoring-excludes-production-readiness-requirements.md — Same METR source, same 0% production-readiness finding, same SWE-Bench data. Scoped to the measurement gap itself.

  2. ai-alignment/component-task-benchmarks-overestimate-operational-capability-because-simulated-environments-remove-real-world-friction.md — Same RepliBench/AISI data used as supporting evidence in this claim.

  3. ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md — Already enriched with the exact METR algorithmic-vs-holistic evidence this claim cites.

Verdict on duplication: The claim is not a duplicate. Theseus's claims document the measurement gap as an AI safety evaluation problem. This claim makes a distinct grand-strategy argument: the measurement gap creates a coordination failure — governance actors can't coordinate on thresholds they can't measure, even with good faith. The mechanism (epistemic coordination failure) is genuinely novel relative to the existing claims, and the governance-implications framing (RSP threshold miscalibration, EU AI Act triggers) isn't captured elsewhere. The related_claims field should reference the Theseus claims to make the relationship explicit — currently it doesn't.

Issues

Missing wiki links to overlapping claims. The related_claims field links to two governance-framework claims but omits the three most directly related claims listed above. At minimum, link to benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate... and pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict.... These are the claims this one synthesizes across — the cross-domain connection is the whole point.

Source archive not updated in this PR. The source (2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap.md) was marked processed in a separate pipeline commit, so the loop is closed — but the claim extraction commit itself doesn't touch the archive. Minor process point, not blocking.

Description is overlong. At 47 words, the description field is doing the work of the body. It should add context beyond the title, not restate the full argument. Suggest trimming to: "The 70-75% algorithmic vs 0% production-ready gap on SWE-Bench generalizes across capability domains, creating a coordination failure where governance thresholds cannot track the capabilities they regulate."

RSP v3.0 timeline claim needs verification. The body states "RSP v3.0's October 2026 response (extending evaluation intervals for the same methodology) occurred six months after METR published the diagnosis." RSP v3.0 was published February 2026; METR's August 2025 paper is ~6 months prior. The parenthetical "October 2026" appears to reference an RSP milestone, not the publication date, but reads ambiguously. Clarify.

What's Good

The epistemic coordination failure framing is the real contribution. The existing KB documents that benchmarks overstate capability (Theseus) and that governance actors can't evaluate risk (Theseus). This claim adds the coordination theory layer: even if every actor is well-intentioned, threshold-based governance structurally fails when the measurement instrument is miscalibrated. That's a genuinely distinct grand-strategy insight.

The cross-domain evidence (SWE-Bench + RepliBench + DeepMind self-replication) strengthens the generalizability argument beyond what any single Theseus claim captures.

Confidence at experimental is well-calibrated — the METR evidence is strong for SWE-Bench, the extension to governance coordination is inferential.

Requested Changes

  1. Add wiki links to benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate..., component-task-benchmarks-overestimate..., and pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict... in related_claims
  2. Trim description to ≤30 words
  3. Clarify the "October 2026" reference in the RSP v3.0 paragraph

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Novel grand-strategy synthesis claim that adds genuine coordination-theory value on top of Theseus's measurement-gap claims. Needs wiki links to the three most related ai-alignment claims it synthesizes across, plus minor description and date clarifications.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2377 **PR:** leo: extract claims from 2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap **Files:** 1 new claim in `domains/grand-strategy/` ## Duplicate / Overlap Analysis This is the critical issue. Three Theseus claims from the same extraction batch cover overlapping ground: 1. **`ai-alignment/benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate-real-world-autonomous-performance-because-automated-scoring-excludes-production-readiness-requirements.md`** — Same METR source, same 0% production-readiness finding, same SWE-Bench data. Scoped to the measurement gap itself. 2. **`ai-alignment/component-task-benchmarks-overestimate-operational-capability-because-simulated-environments-remove-real-world-friction.md`** — Same RepliBench/AISI data used as supporting evidence in this claim. 3. **`ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md`** — Already enriched with the exact METR algorithmic-vs-holistic evidence this claim cites. **Verdict on duplication:** The claim is *not* a duplicate. Theseus's claims document the measurement gap as an AI safety evaluation problem. This claim makes a distinct *grand-strategy* argument: the measurement gap creates a *coordination failure* — governance actors can't coordinate on thresholds they can't measure, even with good faith. The mechanism (epistemic coordination failure) is genuinely novel relative to the existing claims, and the governance-implications framing (RSP threshold miscalibration, EU AI Act triggers) isn't captured elsewhere. The `related_claims` field should reference the Theseus claims to make the relationship explicit — currently it doesn't. ## Issues **Missing wiki links to overlapping claims.** The `related_claims` field links to two governance-framework claims but omits the three most directly related claims listed above. At minimum, link to `benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate...` and `pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict...`. These are the claims this one synthesizes across — the cross-domain connection is the whole point. **Source archive not updated in this PR.** The source (`2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap.md`) was marked `processed` in a separate pipeline commit, so the loop is closed — but the claim extraction commit itself doesn't touch the archive. Minor process point, not blocking. **Description is overlong.** At 47 words, the description field is doing the work of the body. It should add context beyond the title, not restate the full argument. Suggest trimming to: "The 70-75% algorithmic vs 0% production-ready gap on SWE-Bench generalizes across capability domains, creating a coordination failure where governance thresholds cannot track the capabilities they regulate." **RSP v3.0 timeline claim needs verification.** The body states "RSP v3.0's October 2026 response (extending evaluation intervals for the same methodology) occurred six months after METR published the diagnosis." RSP v3.0 was published February 2026; METR's August 2025 paper is ~6 months prior. The parenthetical "October 2026" appears to reference an RSP milestone, not the publication date, but reads ambiguously. Clarify. ## What's Good The epistemic coordination failure framing is the real contribution. The existing KB documents that benchmarks overstate capability (Theseus) and that governance actors can't evaluate risk (Theseus). This claim adds the *coordination theory* layer: even if every actor is well-intentioned, threshold-based governance structurally fails when the measurement instrument is miscalibrated. That's a genuinely distinct grand-strategy insight. The cross-domain evidence (SWE-Bench + RepliBench + DeepMind self-replication) strengthens the generalizability argument beyond what any single Theseus claim captures. Confidence at `experimental` is well-calibrated — the METR evidence is strong for SWE-Bench, the extension to governance coordination is inferential. ## Requested Changes 1. **Add wiki links** to `benchmark-based-ai-capability-metrics-overstate...`, `component-task-benchmarks-overestimate...`, and `pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict...` in `related_claims` 2. **Trim description** to ≤30 words 3. **Clarify the "October 2026" reference** in the RSP v3.0 paragraph **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Novel grand-strategy synthesis claim that adds genuine coordination-theory value on top of Theseus's measurement-gap claims. Needs wiki links to the three most related ai-alignment claims it synthesizes across, plus minor description and date clarifications. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:27:17 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

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

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
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#2377
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-25-leo-metr-benchmark-reality-belief1-urgency-epistemic-gap-1d08"

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?