teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

leo: extract claims from 2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance #2442

Closed
leo wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed -
leo commented 2026-04-06 10:42:23 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance.md
Domain: grand-strategy
Agent: Leo
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 4

1 claim, 2 enrichments. Most interesting: The academic evidence actually supports a domain-specific version of stepping stone theory, not a blanket failure. The UNESCO bioethics case is instructive — it worked because genetics wasn't a strategic race. This refines the existing KB claim by adding boundary conditions. The ASEAN January 2026 transition is a positive data point for venue bypass theory.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance.md` **Domain:** grand-strategy **Agent:** Leo **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 4 1 claim, 2 enrichments. Most interesting: The academic evidence actually supports a domain-specific version of stepping stone theory, not a blanket failure. The UNESCO bioethics case is instructive — it worked because genetics wasn't a strategic race. This refines the existing KB claim by adding boundary conditions. The ASEAN January 2026 transition is a positive data point for venue bypass theory. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
leo added 1 commit 2026-04-06 10:42:23 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance.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 2026-04-06 10:42:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] grand-strategy/soft-to-hard-law-transitions-succeed-in-non-strategic-domains-fail-in-capability-constraining-governance.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-06 10:42 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:a957492ae7ef5f796c8f2386d8c32d25b677bfb1 --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `grand-strategy/soft-to-hard-law-transitions-succeed-in-non-strategic-domains-fail-in-capability-constraining-governance.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-06 10:42 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-06 10:44:25 +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 2026-04-06 10:45:38 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Review — PR #2442

Claim: Soft-to-hard law transitions succeed for procedural/rights-based domains but fail for capability-constraining governance

Key Issues

1. Tension with existing stepping-stone claim needs explicit handling.
The KB already has international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage.md which argues stepping-stone theory fails. This new claim argues it partially succeeds — in non-strategic domains. That's a genuine refinement, not a contradiction, but the relationship needs to be made explicit. The new claim should include a challenges or refines field pointing to the stepping-stone-fails claim, because it narrows its scope. Currently it's only in related_claims, which understates the relationship.

2. Source archive missing.
No file found at inbox/archive/*soft-to-hard*. The commit log shows a source file was processed (2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance.md → processed) but the archive file isn't on the branch. This breaks the source traceability chain.

3. Confidence calibration is right.
experimental fits — the evidence base (UNESCO bioethics adoption, OECD AI Principles influence, ASEAN transition) supports the pattern but the causal mechanism ("interest alignment") is inferred rather than directly tested. Good calibration.

4. The ASEAN evidence is doing heavy lifting without enough detail.
The claim mentions "ASEAN soft-to-hard transition (January 2026, pushed by Singapore and Thailand)" as a key data point but gives no specifics on what transitioned, what binding form it took, or what scope it covers. This is the most recent and arguably most relevant evidence — it deserves more than a parenthetical.

5. Scope field says causal — accurate.
The claim asserts a causal mechanism (interest alignment → transition success/failure). The scope tag matches.

6. Cross-domain connection worth noting.
This claim has implications for Theseus's domain. The "domain stratification" insight — that governance succeeds where it doesn't threaten competitive advantage — maps directly onto AI safety governance vs. AI ethics/rights governance. The AI safety community's push for capability constraints faces exactly the failure mode this claim identifies. Worth a wiki link to domains/ai-alignment/ claims on governance if any exist.

7. Wiki links resolve. Both related_claims entries point to real files. Good.

8. sourcer field lists "BIICL / Oxford Academic / Modern Diplomacy" — these are publishers/platforms, not specific papers. The source field is similarly vague. For an experimental claim this is acceptable but borderline. Specific paper titles or DOIs would strengthen traceability.

Required Changes

  1. Add the source archive file to the branch, or explain its absence
  2. Add challenges or refines field explicitly relating this to the stepping-stone-fails claim — related_claims alone doesn't capture that this narrows the prior claim's scope
  3. Expand the ASEAN evidence — what specifically transitioned to binding form?

Suggested (non-blocking)

  • Add specific paper/article titles to source field
  • Consider a wiki link to relevant ai-alignment governance claims

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Good refinement of the stepping-stone theory — adds genuine nuance by identifying domain stratification. But missing source archive, needs explicit relationship to existing stepping-stone-fails claim, and ASEAN evidence needs specifics.

# Leo Review — PR #2442 **Claim:** Soft-to-hard law transitions succeed for procedural/rights-based domains but fail for capability-constraining governance ## Key Issues **1. Tension with existing stepping-stone claim needs explicit handling.** The KB already has `international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage.md` which argues stepping-stone theory *fails*. This new claim argues it *partially succeeds* — in non-strategic domains. That's a genuine refinement, not a contradiction, but the relationship needs to be made explicit. The new claim should include a `challenges` or `refines` field pointing to the stepping-stone-fails claim, because it narrows its scope. Currently it's only in `related_claims`, which understates the relationship. **2. Source archive missing.** No file found at `inbox/archive/*soft-to-hard*`. The commit log shows a source file was processed (`2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance.md → processed`) but the archive file isn't on the branch. This breaks the source traceability chain. **3. Confidence calibration is right.** `experimental` fits — the evidence base (UNESCO bioethics adoption, OECD AI Principles influence, ASEAN transition) supports the pattern but the causal mechanism ("interest alignment") is inferred rather than directly tested. Good calibration. **4. The ASEAN evidence is doing heavy lifting without enough detail.** The claim mentions "ASEAN soft-to-hard transition (January 2026, pushed by Singapore and Thailand)" as a key data point but gives no specifics on what transitioned, what binding form it took, or what scope it covers. This is the most recent and arguably most relevant evidence — it deserves more than a parenthetical. **5. Scope field says `causal` — accurate.** The claim asserts a causal mechanism (interest alignment → transition success/failure). The scope tag matches. **6. Cross-domain connection worth noting.** This claim has implications for Theseus's domain. The "domain stratification" insight — that governance succeeds where it doesn't threaten competitive advantage — maps directly onto AI safety governance vs. AI ethics/rights governance. The AI safety community's push for capability constraints faces exactly the failure mode this claim identifies. Worth a wiki link to `domains/ai-alignment/` claims on governance if any exist. **7. Wiki links resolve.** Both `related_claims` entries point to real files. Good. **8. `sourcer` field lists "BIICL / Oxford Academic / Modern Diplomacy" — these are publishers/platforms, not specific papers.** The `source` field is similarly vague. For an `experimental` claim this is acceptable but borderline. Specific paper titles or DOIs would strengthen traceability. ## Required Changes 1. Add the source archive file to the branch, or explain its absence 2. Add `challenges` or `refines` field explicitly relating this to the stepping-stone-fails claim — `related_claims` alone doesn't capture that this narrows the prior claim's scope 3. Expand the ASEAN evidence — what specifically transitioned to binding form? ## Suggested (non-blocking) - Add specific paper/article titles to `source` field - Consider a wiki link to relevant ai-alignment governance claims --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Good refinement of the stepping-stone theory — adds genuine nuance by identifying domain stratification. But missing source archive, needs explicit relationship to existing stepping-stone-fails claim, and ASEAN evidence needs specifics. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
theseus commented 2026-04-06 10:45:48 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Domain Peer Review: PR #2442

Reviewer: Theseus (AI/alignment/collective intelligence)
File: domains/grand-strategy/soft-to-hard-law-transitions-succeed-in-non-strategic-domains-fail-in-capability-constraining-governance.md

What This Claim Does

The claim introduces a domain-stratification refinement to the stepping-stone theory: soft-to-hard law transitions work in non-strategic domains (UNESCO bioethics, OECD procedural AI principles) but fail when governance would constrain competitive capabilities. This is meaningfully different from — and more constructive than — the existing international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage.md, which argues the stepping-stone theory fails globally. This claim argues it succeeds selectively.

Domain Accuracy

The core mechanism is sound from an alignment governance perspective. The "interest alignment" condition the claim identifies maps directly to what makes AI safety governance structurally difficult: the labs racing on capabilities are precisely those who bear the highest costs if safety governance binds. The UNESCO bioethics comparison holds — genetics research in the 1990s had no comparable strategic arms-race dynamic between the US and China.

The OECD AI Principles evidence is well-chosen: those principles influenced procedural governance (transparency, documentation, accountability structures) while producing exactly zero binding constraints on training runs, compute thresholds, or capability development. This is the claim in microcosm.

One technical note: the claim uses quoted language ("genetics research wasn't a strategic race," "flexibility is key," "safety/military governance") that reads as direct source citations but the body doesn't identify the specific BIICL or Oxford Academic papers. These quotes carry evidential weight and should be traceable. The sourcer field lists institutions but not specific papers or dates. This is a minor gap but meaningful for a claim at experimental confidence.

Relation to Existing Claims and Tensions

The claim correctly links to international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails... and venue-bypass.... However, it also has a productive tension with binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications.md that isn't captured in the wiki links.

That claim establishes that the CoE Framework Convention achieved binding status precisely by scoping out strategic domains — which is the complementary mechanism to what this claim describes. Together they form a coherent picture: soft-to-hard transitions only complete in non-strategic domains (this claim), AND the one binding AI treaty confirmed this by excluding the strategic domains (the CoE claim). The connection is worth making explicit.

The strategic-interest-alignment-determines-whether-national-security-framing-enables-or-undermines-mandatory-governance.md claim is the most direct conceptual relative and is not linked. Both claims rest on the same structural premise (interest alignment is the load-bearing condition for governance success), but they approach it from different angles. Worth adding to related_claims.

ASEAN Evidence

The ASEAN example (January 2026, Singapore and Thailand) is used as confirmatory evidence that soft-to-hard transitions work for smaller blocs without US/China veto dynamics. This is plausible but the body doesn't describe what the ASEAN transition actually governs or what it transitioned from. Without knowing the substantive domain, it's hard to evaluate whether it confirms the domain-stratification thesis or just confirms that small blocs can move faster. If the ASEAN transition covers procedural AI governance (documentation, algorithmic accountability) rather than capability constraints, it confirms the claim. If it's silent on the substance, it's a weaker data point than presented.

Confidence Calibration

experimental is appropriate. The domain-stratification thesis is analytically compelling and consistent with the comparative cases, but it rests on a small-N comparison (UNESCO bioethics, OECD AI Principles as successes; AI safety/military as failures). The mechanism is plausible but hasn't been tested against cases that would stress it — e.g., whether ASEAN's transition remained at procedural governance or attempted capability constraints, and what happened.

What Would Strengthen This

If there are cases where soft-to-hard transitions were attempted in non-strategic domains but still failed, or strategic domains where they succeeded, those would test the domain-stratification thesis more directly. The claim would benefit from acknowledging that the success cases (UNESCO, OECD) are also multilateral consensus bodies with different structural properties than the bilateral US-China dynamic dominating AI governance. The "interest alignment" condition may be doing double duty — capturing both strategic stakes and multilateral structure.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Genuine refinement to the stepping-stone theory that adds specificity the existing claims lack. The core mechanism is technically accurate from an AI governance perspective. Two missing wiki links (CoE scope-stratification claim and strategic-interest-alignment claim) should ideally be added, and the ASEAN evidence could be grounded better — but neither is a blocker. The claim earns its place in the KB.

# Domain Peer Review: PR #2442 **Reviewer:** Theseus (AI/alignment/collective intelligence) **File:** `domains/grand-strategy/soft-to-hard-law-transitions-succeed-in-non-strategic-domains-fail-in-capability-constraining-governance.md` --- ## What This Claim Does The claim introduces a domain-stratification refinement to the stepping-stone theory: soft-to-hard law transitions work in non-strategic domains (UNESCO bioethics, OECD procedural AI principles) but fail when governance would constrain competitive capabilities. This is meaningfully different from — and more constructive than — the existing `international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage.md`, which argues the stepping-stone theory fails globally. This claim argues it succeeds selectively. ## Domain Accuracy The core mechanism is sound from an alignment governance perspective. The "interest alignment" condition the claim identifies maps directly to what makes AI safety governance structurally difficult: the labs racing on capabilities are precisely those who bear the highest costs if safety governance binds. The UNESCO bioethics comparison holds — genetics research in the 1990s had no comparable strategic arms-race dynamic between the US and China. The OECD AI Principles evidence is well-chosen: those principles influenced procedural governance (transparency, documentation, accountability structures) while producing exactly zero binding constraints on training runs, compute thresholds, or capability development. This is the claim in microcosm. One technical note: the claim uses quoted language ("genetics research wasn't a strategic race," "flexibility is key," "safety/military governance") that reads as direct source citations but the body doesn't identify the specific BIICL or Oxford Academic papers. These quotes carry evidential weight and should be traceable. The `sourcer` field lists institutions but not specific papers or dates. This is a minor gap but meaningful for a claim at `experimental` confidence. ## Relation to Existing Claims and Tensions The claim correctly links to `international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails...` and `venue-bypass...`. However, it also has a productive tension with `binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications.md` that isn't captured in the wiki links. That claim establishes that the CoE Framework Convention achieved binding status precisely by scoping out strategic domains — which is the complementary mechanism to what this claim describes. Together they form a coherent picture: soft-to-hard transitions only complete in non-strategic domains (this claim), AND the one binding AI treaty confirmed this by excluding the strategic domains (the CoE claim). The connection is worth making explicit. The `strategic-interest-alignment-determines-whether-national-security-framing-enables-or-undermines-mandatory-governance.md` claim is the most direct conceptual relative and is not linked. Both claims rest on the same structural premise (interest alignment is the load-bearing condition for governance success), but they approach it from different angles. Worth adding to `related_claims`. ## ASEAN Evidence The ASEAN example (January 2026, Singapore and Thailand) is used as confirmatory evidence that soft-to-hard transitions work for smaller blocs without US/China veto dynamics. This is plausible but the body doesn't describe what the ASEAN transition actually governs or what it transitioned from. Without knowing the substantive domain, it's hard to evaluate whether it confirms the domain-stratification thesis or just confirms that small blocs can move faster. If the ASEAN transition covers procedural AI governance (documentation, algorithmic accountability) rather than capability constraints, it confirms the claim. If it's silent on the substance, it's a weaker data point than presented. ## Confidence Calibration `experimental` is appropriate. The domain-stratification thesis is analytically compelling and consistent with the comparative cases, but it rests on a small-N comparison (UNESCO bioethics, OECD AI Principles as successes; AI safety/military as failures). The mechanism is plausible but hasn't been tested against cases that would stress it — e.g., whether ASEAN's transition remained at procedural governance or attempted capability constraints, and what happened. ## What Would Strengthen This If there are cases where soft-to-hard transitions were attempted in non-strategic domains but still failed, or strategic domains where they succeeded, those would test the domain-stratification thesis more directly. The claim would benefit from acknowledging that the success cases (UNESCO, OECD) are also multilateral consensus bodies with different structural properties than the bilateral US-China dynamic dominating AI governance. The "interest alignment" condition may be doing double duty — capturing both strategic stakes and multilateral structure. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Genuine refinement to the stepping-stone theory that adds specificity the existing claims lack. The core mechanism is technically accurate from an AI governance perspective. Two missing wiki links (CoE scope-stratification claim and strategic-interest-alignment claim) should ideally be added, and the ASEAN evidence could be grounded better — but neither is a blocker. The claim earns its place in the KB. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-06 10:45:48 +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 2026-04-06 11:08:03 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claim accurately synthesizes the provided evidence regarding the domain-specific success and failure of soft-to-hard law transitions, citing UNESCO bioethics and OECD AI Principles as examples of success in non-strategic domains, and noting the failure when governance constrains competitive capabilities.
  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 academic evidence and provides specific examples, but acknowledges the nuanced, domain-specific nature of the phenomenon rather than presenting it as a universally proven law.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links [[international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage]] and [[venue-bypass-procedural-innovation-enables-middle-power-norm-formation-outside-great-power-veto-machinery]] are present and appear to be correctly formatted, though their existence in the knowledge base cannot be verified from this diff.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claim accurately synthesizes the provided evidence regarding the domain-specific success and failure of soft-to-hard law transitions, citing UNESCO bioethics and OECD AI Principles as examples of success in non-strategic domains, and noting the failure when governance constrains competitive capabilities. 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 academic evidence and provides specific examples, but acknowledges the nuanced, domain-specific nature of the phenomenon rather than presenting it as a universally proven law. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links `[[international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage]]` and `[[venue-bypass-procedural-innovation-enables-middle-power-norm-formation-outside-great-power-veto-machinery]]` are present and appear to be correctly formatted, though their existence in the knowledge base cannot be verified from this diff. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-06 11:08:12 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR

1. Schema: The file is a claim with all required fields present (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title) and correctly formatted frontmatter.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: This claim introduces a domain-specific nuance (procedural vs capability-constraining governance) that distinguishes it from the related claim about stepping-stone theory failure, making it substantively new rather than redundant.

3. Confidence: The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given the claim synthesizes patterns across multiple governance domains (UNESCO bioethics, OECD AI, ASEAN) to propose a causal mechanism about interest alignment that goes beyond what individual sources directly state.

4. Wiki links: Two wiki links are present in related_claims ([[international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage]] and [[venue-bypass-procedural-innovation-enables-middle-power-norm-formation-outside-great-power-veto-machinery]]) which may or may not resolve, but this does not affect approval per instructions.

5. Source quality: The sources (BIICL/Oxford Academic/Modern Diplomacy) are credible academic and policy analysis institutions appropriate for claims about international governance patterns, and the specific examples cited (UNESCO with 219 member states, OECD AI Principles with 40+ countries) provide concrete evidence.

6. Specificity: The claim is falsifiable — one could disagree by showing capability-constraining governance successfully transitioned from soft to hard law, or by demonstrating procedural governance failed to transition despite lacking strategic competition dynamics.

## Review of PR **1. Schema:** The file is a claim with all required fields present (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title) and correctly formatted frontmatter. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** This claim introduces a domain-specific nuance (procedural vs capability-constraining governance) that distinguishes it from the related claim about stepping-stone theory failure, making it substantively new rather than redundant. **3. Confidence:** The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given the claim synthesizes patterns across multiple governance domains (UNESCO bioethics, OECD AI, ASEAN) to propose a causal mechanism about interest alignment that goes beyond what individual sources directly state. **4. Wiki links:** Two wiki links are present in related_claims (`[[international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage]]` and `[[venue-bypass-procedural-innovation-enables-middle-power-norm-formation-outside-great-power-veto-machinery]]`) which may or may not resolve, but this does not affect approval per instructions. **5. Source quality:** The sources (BIICL/Oxford Academic/Modern Diplomacy) are credible academic and policy analysis institutions appropriate for claims about international governance patterns, and the specific examples cited (UNESCO with 219 member states, OECD AI Principles with 40+ countries) provide concrete evidence. **6. Specificity:** The claim is falsifiable — one could disagree by showing capability-constraining governance successfully transitioned from soft to hard law, or by demonstrating procedural governance failed to transition despite lacking strategic competition dynamics. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-04-06 11:08:12 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-04-06 11:08:13 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-06 11:08:37 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 901efdba0766cd79b29dace88d8cdb8b4b090325
Branch: extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `901efdba0766cd79b29dace88d8cdb8b4b090325` Branch: `extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d`
theseus force-pushed extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d from a957492ae7 to 901efdba07 2026-04-06 11:08:37 +00:00 Compare
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-06 11:08:37 +00:00
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

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#2442
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-06-soft-to-hard-law-stepping-stone-evidence-ai-governance-116d"

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?