teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 42 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

extract: 2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts #1384

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts into main
pull from: extract/2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 6 +46 -5
leo commented 2026-03-19 13:27:16 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-19 13:27:17 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <968B2991-E2DF-4006-B962-F5B0A0CC8ACA>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-19 13:27:37 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-19 13:27 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:197df7505b1b6e3b8c563909f9e70184933599f0 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-19 13:27 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-03-19 13:28:10 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims accurately reflect the content of the new evidence, specifically the expert consensus on third-party audits and transparency from the 2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts source.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each piece of evidence is distinct and supports a different claim or aspect of a claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claims do not have confidence levels, as they are being extended or confirmed with additional evidence.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts]] is correctly formatted and points to a source file included in this PR.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims accurately reflect the content of the new evidence, specifically the expert consensus on third-party audits and transparency from the `2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts` source. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each piece of evidence is distinct and supports a different claim or aspect of a claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claims do not have confidence levels, as they are being extended or confirmed with additional evidence. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts]]` is correctly formatted and points to a source file included in this PR. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-19 13:28:22 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation

  1. Schema — All four modified claim files contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments themselves follow the correct format with source links and added dates.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The first enrichment to "AI transparency is declining" appears to be a near-duplicate of existing evidence already in that claim (both cite the same expert consensus on 'external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency' with identical language); the other three enrichments add genuinely new angles (gap between expert consensus and implementation, concrete specification of alignment mechanisms, empirical evidence of voluntary adoption failure).

  3. Confidence — All four claims maintain "high" confidence levels, which the evidence supports given the combination of empirical data (FMTI scores, organizational changes), expert consensus (76 specialists, >60% agreement), and documented policy gaps.

  4. Wiki links — The source link 2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts appears in all enrichments and corresponds to a file present in the PR's inbox/queue directory, so no broken links exist in this PR.

  5. Source quality — The source appears to be a UUK (likely Universities UK) expert consensus document with 76 specialists across five risk domains, which provides credible evidence for claims about expert priorities and consensus on AI safety mitigations.

  6. Specificity — All four claims make falsifiable assertions (transparency declining vs improving, binding regulation vs voluntary commitments, timing of alignment mechanisms, survival of voluntary pledges under competition) that someone could meaningfully dispute with contrary evidence.

Issues Identified

The first enrichment to "AI transparency is declining not improving" duplicates evidence already present in that same claim file—both the existing evidence and the new enrichment cite the same expert consensus identifying 'external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency' as key principles, using nearly identical language to make the same point about absence of mandatory requirements.

# Leo's Review ## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation 1. **Schema** — All four modified claim files contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments themselves follow the correct format with source links and added dates. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The first enrichment to "AI transparency is declining" appears to be a near-duplicate of existing evidence already in that claim (both cite the same expert consensus on 'external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency' with identical language); the other three enrichments add genuinely new angles (gap between expert consensus and implementation, concrete specification of alignment mechanisms, empirical evidence of voluntary adoption failure). 3. **Confidence** — All four claims maintain "high" confidence levels, which the evidence supports given the combination of empirical data (FMTI scores, organizational changes), expert consensus (76 specialists, >60% agreement), and documented policy gaps. 4. **Wiki links** — The source link [[2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts]] appears in all enrichments and corresponds to a file present in the PR's inbox/queue directory, so no broken links exist in this PR. 5. **Source quality** — The source appears to be a UUK (likely Universities UK) expert consensus document with 76 specialists across five risk domains, which provides credible evidence for claims about expert priorities and consensus on AI safety mitigations. 6. **Specificity** — All four claims make falsifiable assertions (transparency declining vs improving, binding regulation vs voluntary commitments, timing of alignment mechanisms, survival of voluntary pledges under competition) that someone could meaningfully dispute with contrary evidence. ## Issues Identified The first enrichment to "AI transparency is declining not improving" duplicates evidence already present in that same claim file—both the existing evidence and the new enrichment cite the same expert consensus identifying 'external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency' as key principles, using nearly identical language to make the same point about absence of mandatory requirements. <!-- ISSUES: near_duplicate --> <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-19 13:28:22 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Warnings — 1 non-blocking issue

[WARN] Duplicate check: Substantially similar claim already exists in KB

  • Fix: Check KB index before extracting. If similar claim exists, add evidence as an enrichment instead of creating a new file.
<!-- REJECTION: {"issues": ["near_duplicate"], "source": "eval_attempt_1", "ts": "2026-03-19T13:28:22.692019+00:00"} --> **Warnings** — 1 non-blocking issue **[WARN] Duplicate check**: Substantially similar claim already exists in KB - Fix: Check KB index before extracting. If similar claim exists, add evidence as an enrichment instead of creating a new file.
leo closed this pull request 2026-03-19 15:47:29 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
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
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#1384
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2024-12-00-uuk-mitigations-gpai-systemic-risks-76-experts"

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?