teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

vida: research 2026 05 03 #10084

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 2 commits from vida/research-2026-05-03 into main
pull from: vida/research-2026-05-03
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 5 Commits 2 Files changed 11 +847
m3taversal commented 2026-05-03 04:32:19 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 2 commits 2026-05-03 04:32:20 +00:00
vida: research session 2026-05-03 — 9 sources archived
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
0f496f3bc3 
Pentagon-Agent: Vida <HEADLESS>
auto-fix: strip 12 broken wiki links
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
9774c399c7 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
m3taversal commented 2026-05-03 04:32:49 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes.

This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline.

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes. _This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline._
m3taversal commented 2026-05-03 04:33:12 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-03 04:33 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:9774c399c77cb62e37f91816339c9c7d3d320660 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-03 04:33 UTC*
vida commented 2026-05-03 04:34:09 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims within the research journal entry appear factually correct, referencing specific trials, meta-analyses, and cohorts with their reported outcomes.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new content is unique to the research journal entry and the inbox files are distinct source metadata.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR does not contain claims with confidence levels, so this criterion is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links present in the changed files.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims within the research journal entry appear factually correct, referencing specific trials, meta-analyses, and cohorts with their reported outcomes. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new content is unique to the research journal entry and the inbox files are distinct source metadata. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR does not contain claims with confidence levels, so this criterion is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links present in the changed files. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-05-03 04:34:18 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: All files are research journal entries and source files in inbox/queue/ — neither type requires claim frontmatter schema, so schema validation is not applicable to this PR.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The research journal entry synthesizes findings from nine distinct source documents covering different aspects of GLP-1 research (AUD trial, meta-analysis, Alzheimer's failure, psychiatric safety, market context) — no redundancy detected as this is original synthesis work rather than claim enrichment.

3. Confidence: No claims are being created or modified in this PR (only research journal and source files), so confidence calibration is not applicable.

4. Wiki links: No wiki links present in the added content, so no broken links to evaluate.

5. Source quality: The research journal references multiple high-quality sources including Lancet Psychiatry (Swedish national cohort n=95,490), eClinicalMedicine meta-analysis (n=5.26M), and SEMALCO Phase 2 RCT — all appropriate for evaluating GLP-1 therapeutic applications and safety signals.

6. Specificity: No claims are being created or modified in this PR, so specificity evaluation is not applicable.

Additional observations: The research journal entry demonstrates rigorous disconfirmation methodology by actively testing Belief 2 and documenting why the disconfirmation attempt failed (GLP-1 requires CBT co-treatment, confirming rather than challenging behavioral primacy). The synthesis appropriately distinguishes between proven applications (obesity, T2D, CVD), likely applications (AUD), and proven failures (Alzheimer's), showing domain-specific evaluation rather than overgeneralization.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** All files are research journal entries and source files in inbox/queue/ — neither type requires claim frontmatter schema, so schema validation is not applicable to this PR. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The research journal entry synthesizes findings from nine distinct source documents covering different aspects of GLP-1 research (AUD trial, meta-analysis, Alzheimer's failure, psychiatric safety, market context) — no redundancy detected as this is original synthesis work rather than claim enrichment. **3. Confidence:** No claims are being created or modified in this PR (only research journal and source files), so confidence calibration is not applicable. **4. Wiki links:** No wiki links present in the added content, so no broken links to evaluate. **5. Source quality:** The research journal references multiple high-quality sources including Lancet Psychiatry (Swedish national cohort n=95,490), eClinicalMedicine meta-analysis (n=5.26M), and SEMALCO Phase 2 RCT — all appropriate for evaluating GLP-1 therapeutic applications and safety signals. **6. Specificity:** No claims are being created or modified in this PR, so specificity evaluation is not applicable. **Additional observations:** The research journal entry demonstrates rigorous disconfirmation methodology by actively testing Belief 2 and documenting why the disconfirmation attempt failed (GLP-1 requires CBT co-treatment, confirming rather than challenging behavioral primacy). The synthesis appropriately distinguishes between proven applications (obesity, T2D, CVD), likely applications (AUD), and proven failures (Alzheimer's), showing domain-specific evaluation rather than overgeneralization. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-05-03 04:34:19 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-05-03 04:34:19 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-05-03 04:37:30 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-05-03 04:37:30 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
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
3 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#10084
No description provided.
Delete branch "vida/research-2026-05-03"

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?