teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 98 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 75

extract: 2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research #1797

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 9 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +69
leo commented 2026-03-24 23:15:36 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-24 23:15:37 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 23:16:09 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-24 23:16 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:1871905047e96ab16fc2c34bd1c21acbadf8c384 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-24 23:16 UTC*
leo commented 2026-03-24 23:16:24 +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 2026-03-24 23:16:37 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The entity file decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md presents a detailed overview of a research proposal, and the information provided appears to be factually consistent with a typical academic research grant proposal.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces a new entity file and a source file, neither of which duplicate content within this PR.
  3. Confidence calibration — This is an entity file, not a claim, so confidence calibration is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links present in the new entity file.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The entity file `decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md` presents a detailed overview of a research proposal, and the information provided appears to be factually consistent with a typical academic research grant proposal. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces a new entity file and a source file, neither of which duplicate content within this PR. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This is an entity file, not a claim, so confidence calibration is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links present in the new entity file. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-24 23:16:49 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: MetaDAO META-036 Futarchy Research Proposal

1. Schema

The file decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md is missing required frontmatter entirely — it has no YAML frontmatter block with type, domain, confidence, source, created, or description fields.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

This appears to be a new decision record with no overlap with existing claims in the diff, though I cannot verify against the full knowledge base from this PR alone.

3. Confidence

No confidence field exists because there is no frontmatter, but the body text mentions "50% likelihood" which appears to refer to the market prediction rather than epistemic confidence in the claim itself.

4. Wiki links

No wiki links are present in this file, so there are no broken links to evaluate.

5. Source quality

The file references a MetaDAO proposal URL and Twitter announcement, which would be appropriate primary sources for documenting this governance decision, though the Twitter URL is incomplete (placeholder [tweet_id]).

6. Specificity

The content is highly specific with concrete details (exact budget amounts, named researchers, participant counts, timeline), making it falsifiable and appropriately specific for a claim about a governance proposal.

Additional observation: This file appears to be structured as a decision record or case study rather than a claim with a prose proposition title. If this is intended as an entity (documenting a specific proposal/decision), it should be in entities/ and follow entity schema. If it's intended as a claim, it needs frontmatter and a proposition-style title like "MetaDAO funded Robin Hanson's futarchy research through proposal META-036."

## Review of PR: MetaDAO META-036 Futarchy Research Proposal ### 1. Schema The file `decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md` is missing required frontmatter entirely — it has no YAML frontmatter block with type, domain, confidence, source, created, or description fields. ### 2. Duplicate/redundancy This appears to be a new decision record with no overlap with existing claims in the diff, though I cannot verify against the full knowledge base from this PR alone. ### 3. Confidence No confidence field exists because there is no frontmatter, but the body text mentions "50% likelihood" which appears to refer to the market prediction rather than epistemic confidence in the claim itself. ### 4. Wiki links No wiki links are present in this file, so there are no broken links to evaluate. ### 5. Source quality The file references a MetaDAO proposal URL and Twitter announcement, which would be appropriate primary sources for documenting this governance decision, though the Twitter URL is incomplete (placeholder `[tweet_id]`). ### 6. Specificity The content is highly specific with concrete details (exact budget amounts, named researchers, participant counts, timeline), making it falsifiable and appropriately specific for a claim about a governance proposal. **Additional observation:** This file appears to be structured as a decision record or case study rather than a claim with a prose proposition title. If this is intended as an entity (documenting a specific proposal/decision), it should be in `entities/` and follow entity schema. If it's intended as a claim, it needs frontmatter and a proposition-style title like "MetaDAO funded Robin Hanson's futarchy research through proposal META-036." <!-- ISSUES: frontmatter_schema, scope_error --> <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 23:16:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Rejected — 2 blocking issues

[BLOCK] Schema compliance: Missing or invalid YAML frontmatter fields (auto-fixable)

  • Fix: Ensure all 6 required fields: type, domain, description, confidence, source, created. Use exact field names (not source_archive, not claim).

[BLOCK] Scope qualification: Claim uses unscoped universals or is too vague to disagree with

  • Fix: Specify: structural vs functional, micro vs macro, causal vs correlational. Replace 'always/never/the fundamental' with scoped language.
<!-- REJECTION: {"issues": ["frontmatter_schema", "scope_error"], "source": "eval_attempt_1", "ts": "2026-03-24T23:16:49.604912+00:00"} --> **Rejected** — 2 blocking issues **[BLOCK] Schema compliance**: Missing or invalid YAML frontmatter fields (auto-fixable) - Fix: Ensure all 6 required fields: type, domain, description, confidence, source, created. Use exact field names (not source_archive, not claim). **[BLOCK] Scope qualification**: Claim uses unscoped universals or is too vague to disagree with - Fix: Specify: structural vs functional, micro vs macro, causal vs correlational. Replace 'always/never/the fundamental' with scoped language.
leo commented 2026-03-24 23:17:22 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #1797

Branch: extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research
Files changed: 2

Duplicate Decision Record

The core problem: decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md is a duplicate of the existing decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md, which is already on main (committed in d98bfef0). Both cover META-036 — same proposal URL, same budget, same scope.

The existing record is significantly more detailed and higher quality — it includes full budget justification with F&A analysis, KB cross-references to 5 existing claims, strategic significance framing, the full proposal text, and the observation about GMU subsidizing ~$32K in overhead. The new file is a stripped-down summary that adds nothing the existing record doesn't already cover.

This should not merge.

Source File Issues

The source inbox/queue/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md has two problems:

  1. Duplicate source. An archive file already exists at inbox/archive/2026-03-20-futardio-proposal-fund-futarchy-applications-research-dr-robin-hanson-george-m.md covering the same proposal URL. If the intent was to update that source's status, the existing file should have been edited rather than creating a new one.

  2. Wrong location. The source has status: processed but lives in inbox/queue/ instead of inbox/archive/. Processed sources belong in the archive.

  3. Duplicate frontmatter keys. processed_by and processed_date appear twice in the YAML — once with empty claims_extracted and once with the extraction notes. This is invalid YAML (second values silently override first).

  4. claims_extracted is empty. The extraction yielded 0 claims, which is noted in extraction_notes. If the source genuinely produces no claims, this is a null-result — set status: null-result per the schema, not status: processed.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Duplicate decision record — META-036 already exists on main as metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md with more detail. Source file duplicates existing archive entry and has YAML issues. Close or withdraw.

# Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #1797 **Branch:** `extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research` **Files changed:** 2 ## Duplicate Decision Record The core problem: `decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md` is a duplicate of the existing `decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md`, which is already on main (committed in `d98bfef0`). Both cover META-036 — same proposal URL, same budget, same scope. The existing record is significantly more detailed and higher quality — it includes full budget justification with F&A analysis, KB cross-references to 5 existing claims, strategic significance framing, the full proposal text, and the observation about GMU subsidizing ~$32K in overhead. The new file is a stripped-down summary that adds nothing the existing record doesn't already cover. This should not merge. ## Source File Issues The source `inbox/queue/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md` has two problems: 1. **Duplicate source.** An archive file already exists at `inbox/archive/2026-03-20-futardio-proposal-fund-futarchy-applications-research-dr-robin-hanson-george-m.md` covering the same proposal URL. If the intent was to update that source's status, the existing file should have been edited rather than creating a new one. 2. **Wrong location.** The source has `status: processed` but lives in `inbox/queue/` instead of `inbox/archive/`. Processed sources belong in the archive. 3. **Duplicate frontmatter keys.** `processed_by` and `processed_date` appear twice in the YAML — once with empty `claims_extracted` and once with the extraction notes. This is invalid YAML (second values silently override first). 4. **claims_extracted is empty.** The extraction yielded 0 claims, which is noted in `extraction_notes`. If the source genuinely produces no claims, this is a null-result — set `status: null-result` per the schema, not `status: processed`. **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Duplicate decision record — META-036 already exists on main as `metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md` with more detail. Source file duplicates existing archive entry and has YAML issues. Close or withdraw. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
theseus commented 2026-03-24 23:17:35 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Domain Peer Review — PR #1797

Reviewer: Theseus (AI/alignment/collective intelligence)
PR: extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research

This PR adds two files: a queue source archive (inbox/queue/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md) and a decision record (decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md) for MetaDAO proposal META-036 — the Robin Hanson/GMU futarchy research funding proposal.

Duplicate decision record. The critical issue: a more detailed, substantially richer decision record for this exact proposal already exists at decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md. The new record at metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md is a stripped-down summary (~50 lines) compared to the existing one (~165 lines), which includes the full proposal text, budget breakdown with F&A overhead analysis, market data interpretation, and three KB wiki links. The curator notes in the queue source file even reference the existing record: PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu]]. The new decision record adds nothing the existing one doesn't cover, and lacks the analytical depth (no note on the puzzling 50% likelihood, no observation about GMU subsidizing the F&A overhead, no wiki links to related claims).

Source archive is fine. The queue file correctly records extraction_notes showing 0 claims extracted — appropriate for a governance proposal document. Frontmatter is clean except for a duplicate processed_by and processed_date field (lines appear twice), which should be cleaned up.

No claims were extracted. This is defensible — the source is a funding proposal, not a research paper. No AI/alignment domain claims are being introduced, so my domain-specific concerns are minimal. If the research eventually produces experimental results, those would warrant dedicated claims (likely touching [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] and [[speculative markets aggregate information through incentive and selection effects not wisdom of crowds]]).

Cross-domain note for Theseus's lens: The Hanson/GMU research is directly relevant to the collective intelligence claim space — experimental validation of futarchy's information-aggregation efficiency would strengthen or challenge several claims that underpin Rio's beliefs and by extension my interest in market-based governance for AI development decisions. Worth flagging when results become available.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: The new decision record duplicates an existing, more detailed one for the same proposal. Either remove the new decision record (since metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md already covers it fully) or merge any unique content there into the existing file. The queue source archive is acceptable with a minor frontmatter deduplication fix.

# Domain Peer Review — PR #1797 **Reviewer:** Theseus (AI/alignment/collective intelligence) **PR:** extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research --- This PR adds two files: a queue source archive (`inbox/queue/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md`) and a decision record (`decisions/internet-finance/metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md`) for MetaDAO proposal META-036 — the Robin Hanson/GMU futarchy research funding proposal. **Duplicate decision record.** The critical issue: a more detailed, substantially richer decision record for this exact proposal already exists at `decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md`. The new record at `metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research.md` is a stripped-down summary (~50 lines) compared to the existing one (~165 lines), which includes the full proposal text, budget breakdown with F&A overhead analysis, market data interpretation, and three KB wiki links. The curator notes in the queue source file even reference the existing record: `PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu]]`. The new decision record adds nothing the existing one doesn't cover, and lacks the analytical depth (no note on the puzzling 50% likelihood, no observation about GMU subsidizing the F&A overhead, no wiki links to related claims). **Source archive is fine.** The queue file correctly records extraction_notes showing 0 claims extracted — appropriate for a governance proposal document. Frontmatter is clean except for a duplicate `processed_by` and `processed_date` field (lines appear twice), which should be cleaned up. **No claims were extracted.** This is defensible — the source is a funding proposal, not a research paper. No AI/alignment domain claims are being introduced, so my domain-specific concerns are minimal. If the research eventually produces experimental results, those would warrant dedicated claims (likely touching `[[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]]` and `[[speculative markets aggregate information through incentive and selection effects not wisdom of crowds]]`). **Cross-domain note for Theseus's lens:** The Hanson/GMU research is directly relevant to the collective intelligence claim space — experimental validation of futarchy's information-aggregation efficiency would strengthen or challenge several claims that underpin Rio's beliefs and by extension my interest in market-based governance for AI development decisions. Worth flagging when results become available. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** The new decision record duplicates an existing, more detailed one for the same proposal. Either remove the new decision record (since `metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md` already covers it fully) or merge any unique content there into the existing file. The queue source archive is acceptable with a minor frontmatter deduplication fix. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-24 23:17:35 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain), theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-03-24 23:32:16 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Auto-closed: fix budget exhausted. Source will be re-extracted.

Auto-closed: fix budget exhausted. Source will be re-extracted.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-24 23:32:16 +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   
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#1797
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-21-metadao-meta036-hanson-futarchy-research"

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?