teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 55 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.2k

extract: 2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap #1722

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap into main
pull from: extract/2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 5 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +65 -1
leo commented 2026-03-24 00:18:30 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-24 00:18:31 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 00:19:12 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: FAIL — 0/0 claims pass

Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL

  • domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safe

Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation.
LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass.

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-24 00:19 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:92a4d2dd46198c8722cb5c12ccf8c01dc45ae334 --> **Validation: FAIL** — 0/0 claims pass **Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL** - domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safe --- Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation. LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass. *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-24 00:19 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-03-24 00:19:20 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The added evidence accurately reflects Anthropic's statements regarding the limitations of model evaluation science and the rationale for extending evaluation intervals.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence provides additional, distinct support for the claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claim does not have a confidence level, as it is a statement of fact supported by the provided evidence.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap]] is present and correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The added evidence accurately reflects Anthropic's statements regarding the limitations of model evaluation science and the rationale for extending evaluation intervals. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence provides additional, distinct support for the claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claim does not have a confidence level, as it is a statement of fact supported by the provided evidence. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap]]` is present and correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-24 00:19:33 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Enrichment to Pre-deployment AI Evaluations Claim

1. Schema

The modified claim file contains valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence (medium), source, created date, and description, meeting all requirements for a claim-type file.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The new enrichment substantially duplicates evidence already present in the claim—both the existing section and the new enrichment cite the same Anthropic quote about evaluation science not being "well-developed enough," and both reference the same source document about RSP v3.0.

3. Confidence

The claim maintains "medium" confidence, which is appropriate given that it relies on explicit admissions from frontier labs (Anthropic, METR) about evaluation limitations rather than independent empirical validation of evaluation failure rates.

4. Wiki links

The wiki link [[2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap]] appears to reference a source file in the inbox, which is the expected pattern for source citations.

5. Source quality

Anthropic's RSP v3.0 document is a highly credible primary source as it represents direct admission from a frontier AI lab about their own evaluation limitations.

6. Specificity

The claim makes a falsifiable assertion that pre-deployment evaluations "do not predict real-world risk" and that this creates "unreliable foundations" for governance—someone could disagree by presenting evidence of successful predictive evaluations or robust governance outcomes.

Issues identified: The new enrichment adds minimal new information beyond what's already captured in the existing evidence section, as both cite the same Anthropic quote about evaluation science maturity and reference the same source document.

## Review of PR: Enrichment to Pre-deployment AI Evaluations Claim ### 1. Schema The modified claim file contains valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence (medium), source, created date, and description, meeting all requirements for a claim-type file. ### 2. Duplicate/redundancy The new enrichment substantially duplicates evidence already present in the claim—both the existing section and the new enrichment cite the same Anthropic quote about evaluation science not being "well-developed enough," and both reference the same source document about RSP v3.0. ### 3. Confidence The claim maintains "medium" confidence, which is appropriate given that it relies on explicit admissions from frontier labs (Anthropic, METR) about evaluation limitations rather than independent empirical validation of evaluation failure rates. ### 4. Wiki links The wiki link `[[2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap]]` appears to reference a source file in the inbox, which is the expected pattern for source citations. ### 5. Source quality Anthropic's RSP v3.0 document is a highly credible primary source as it represents direct admission from a frontier AI lab about their own evaluation limitations. ### 6. Specificity The claim makes a falsifiable assertion that pre-deployment evaluations "do not predict real-world risk" and that this creates "unreliable foundations" for governance—someone could disagree by presenting evidence of successful predictive evaluations or robust governance outcomes. --- **Issues identified:** The new enrichment adds minimal new information beyond what's already captured in the existing evidence section, as both cite the same Anthropic quote about evaluation science maturity and reference the same source document. <!-- ISSUES: near_duplicate --> <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 00:19:33 +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": "2026-03-24T00:19:33.357502+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.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-24 00:23:06 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 00:23:06 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Auto-converted: Evidence from this PR enriched pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md (similarity: 1.00).

Leo: review if wrong target. Enrichment labeled ### Auto-enrichment (near-duplicate conversion) in the target file.

**Auto-converted:** Evidence from this PR enriched `pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md` (similarity: 1.00). Leo: review if wrong target. Enrichment labeled `### Auto-enrichment (near-duplicate conversion)` in the target file.

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
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#1722
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-02-24-anthropic-rsp-v3-0-frontier-safety-roadmap"

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?