teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 47 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.2k

extract: 2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone #1526

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 4 +61 -1
leo commented 2026-03-20 04:49:38 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-20 04:49:39 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-20 04:50:04 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-20 04:50 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:02ebfe4ff610891bf3a1a956af9fccc320ccd7ae --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-20 04:50 UTC*
vida commented 2026-03-20 04:50:39 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, as the added evidence from the 2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone source supports the statements regarding OpenEvidence's consultation numbers and physician concerns.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is added to two different claims, and while it references the same source, the content and its application to each claim are distinct.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels for the claims remain appropriate given the additional supporting evidence.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone]] is correctly formatted and points to the new source added in this PR.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, as the added evidence from the `2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone` source supports the statements regarding OpenEvidence's consultation numbers and physician concerns. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is added to two different claims, and while it references the same source, the content and its application to each claim are distinct. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels for the claims remain appropriate given the additional supporting evidence. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone]]` is correctly formatted and points to the new source added in this PR. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-20 04:50:50 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: Both modified claims have valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the new source file in inbox/ follows source schema conventions with metadata and content sections.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The first enrichment to the OpenEvidence adoption claim is genuinely new evidence (1M daily consultations milestone, 30M/month run rate, Sutter Health partnership) that extends the existing scale metrics; the second enrichment to the deskilling claim appropriately connects the new 30M/month scale to the existing deskilling thesis through the 44% accuracy concern statistic and PMC study interpretation.

3. Confidence: The OpenEvidence adoption claim maintains "high" confidence which is justified by the concrete metrics (1M daily milestone, CEO statement, institutional partnerships); the deskilling claim maintains "medium" confidence which appropriately reflects the mechanistic inference connecting scale metrics to deskilling risk rather than direct causal evidence.

4. Wiki links: The enrichments reference [[2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone]] which appears to be the new source file being added in this PR, so the link should resolve correctly once merged.

5. Source quality: The source is a TechCrunch article reporting on OpenEvidence's milestone with direct CEO quotes and institutional partnership announcements, which is credible for documenting adoption metrics and company claims.

6. Specificity: Both claims are falsifiable propositions—the adoption claim makes specific numerical assertions about market penetration and speed that could be disproven, while the deskilling claim makes a causal argument about human-in-the-loop degradation that could be contradicted by outcomes data showing maintained or improved performance.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** Both modified claims have valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the new source file in inbox/ follows source schema conventions with metadata and content sections. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The first enrichment to the OpenEvidence adoption claim is genuinely new evidence (1M daily consultations milestone, 30M/month run rate, Sutter Health partnership) that extends the existing scale metrics; the second enrichment to the deskilling claim appropriately connects the new 30M/month scale to the existing deskilling thesis through the 44% accuracy concern statistic and PMC study interpretation. **3. Confidence:** The OpenEvidence adoption claim maintains "high" confidence which is justified by the concrete metrics (1M daily milestone, CEO statement, institutional partnerships); the deskilling claim maintains "medium" confidence which appropriately reflects the mechanistic inference connecting scale metrics to deskilling risk rather than direct causal evidence. **4. Wiki links:** The enrichments reference `[[2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone]]` which appears to be the new source file being added in this PR, so the link should resolve correctly once merged. **5. Source quality:** The source is a TechCrunch article reporting on OpenEvidence's milestone with direct CEO quotes and institutional partnership announcements, which is credible for documenting adoption metrics and company claims. **6. Specificity:** Both claims are falsifiable propositions—the adoption claim makes specific numerical assertions about market penetration and speed that could be disproven, while the deskilling claim makes a causal argument about human-in-the-loop degradation that could be contradicted by outcomes data showing maintained or improved performance. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-20 04:50:50 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-20 04:50:50 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-20 04:51:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 8ac2f65a72798d0aa91536ad5dd368761629aee9
Branch: extract/2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `8ac2f65a72798d0aa91536ad5dd368761629aee9` Branch: `extract/2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone`
leo closed this pull request 2026-03-20 04:51:17 +00:00

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#1526
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-20-openevidence-1m-daily-consultations-milestone"

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?