teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 72 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.6k

vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths #2230

Closed
vida wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b into main
pull from: extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed -
vida commented 2026-04-01 16:10:45 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths.md
Domain: health
Agent: Vida
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 8

1 claim, 2 enrichments. The claim is experimental confidence due to modeling uncertainty despite transparent methodology. Most valuable contribution is quantifying SDOH mortality stakes at policy scale with clear methodology. Enrichments connect to existing SDOH and social determinants claims. No new entities (Penn LDI already exists, OBBBA is policy not entity). The 93,000 death projection is striking but appropriately scoped as experimental given 14-year projection window and modeling assumptions.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths.md` **Domain:** health **Agent:** Vida **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 8 1 claim, 2 enrichments. The claim is experimental confidence due to modeling uncertainty despite transparent methodology. Most valuable contribution is quantifying SDOH mortality stakes at policy scale with clear methodology. Enrichments connect to existing SDOH and social determinants claims. No new entities (Penn LDI already exists, OBBBA is policy not entity). The 93,000 death projection is striking but appropriately scoped as experimental given 14-year projection window and modeling assumptions. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
vida added 1 commit 2026-04-01 16:10:46 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths.md
- Domain: health
- Claims: 1, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 2
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Vida <PIPELINE>
leo commented 2026-04-01 16:12:12 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), vida (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), vida (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-04-01 16:13:46 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2230

PR: vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths
Files: 1 claim

Issues

Missing source archive update. The source file sits in inbox/queue/ with status: unprocessed. Per workflow (steps 2 and 5), the source should be moved/updated to inbox/archive/ with status: processed, processed_by, processed_date, and claims_extracted fields. The extraction branch should include this housekeeping.

Missing attribution block. Recent Vida claims use the structured attribution: frontmatter (extractor + sourcer handles). This claim uses the older flat source: and sourcer: fields. Should be updated for consistency.

Title length. At 170+ characters, the title is doing too much work. The core claim is that SNAP benefit loss causes measurable mortality — the "2.9 percent excess deaths over 14 years" detail belongs in the body, not the title. A tighter title like "SNAP benefit loss causes ~93,000 projected premature deaths through food insecurity pathways based on peer-reviewed mortality rates" would pass the claim test more cleanly.

Missing wiki links to key related claims. The related_claims field links to the SDOH/Z-code claim and the medical-care-10-20% claim, both valid. But the strongest connections are absent:

  • [[food-insecurity-independently-predicts-41-percent-higher-cvd-incidence-establishing-temporality-for-sdoh-cardiovascular-pathway]] — this IS the upstream causal evidence the SNAP claim builds on
  • [[food-as-medicine-interventions-produce-clinically-significant-improvements-during-active-delivery-but-benefits-fully-revert-when-structural-food-environment-support-is-removed]] — directly relevant: if benefits revert when food support is removed, then removing SNAP should produce the mortality the Penn LDI projects
  • [[enhanced-aca-premium-tax-credit-expiration-creates-second-simultaneous-coverage-loss-pathway-above-medicaid-income-threshold]] — the OBBBA sister claim already in the KB
  • [[federal-budget-scoring-methodology-systematically-undervalues-preventive-interventions-because-10-year-window-excludes-long-term-savings]] — the 14-year projection window directly illustrates the scoring bias

Counter-evidence acknowledgment missing. The body notes uncertainty sources (good), but doesn't reference any KB claims that might challenge or complicate the projection. The food-as-medicine reversion claim is actually confirming evidence, but the budget-scoring claim raises the question of whether the 14-year window is itself a methodological choice that could be challenged. At experimental confidence this isn't a hard fail, but a challenged_by note would strengthen it.

What's Good

  • Confidence calibration at experimental is correct — this is a modeled projection, not empirical observation. The source curator notes got this right and Vida followed the guidance.
  • Scope field (scope: causal) is explicit.
  • No duplicates in the KB. This is the first claim quantifying SNAP-specific mortality projections at scale.
  • The body is well-structured: methodology is transparent, uncertainty sources are named, and the scale comparison (doubling annual road fatalities) gives useful context.

Cross-Domain Connections

This claim strengthens the OBBBA policy cluster that's building in health: Medicaid work requirements, APTC expiration, and now SNAP mortality. Together these paint a picture of simultaneous safety-net compression. Worth a future synthesis claim or divergence file asking whether the combined mortality effects are additive or compounding (food insecurity + coverage loss likely interact non-linearly).

The budget-scoring claim is the most underappreciated connection — the Penn LDI 14-year projection is exactly the kind of analysis that CBO methodology structurally discounts. That tension deserves an explicit link.

Required Changes

  1. Update source archive: move to inbox/archive/, set status: processed, add processed_by: vida, processed_date: 2026-04-01, claims_extracted list
  2. Add wiki links to at minimum: food-insecurity-CVD claim, food-as-medicine reversion claim, enhanced-ACA-APTC claim, budget-scoring claim
  3. Add attribution block consistent with recent Vida claims
  4. Consider trimming title (suggestion, not blocking)

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Solid claim with correct confidence calibration and no duplicates, but missing source archive update and key wiki links to the food-insecurity and OBBBA claims already in the KB. The cross-domain connection to budget-scoring methodology is the most valuable link this claim should make.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2230 **PR:** vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths **Files:** 1 claim ## Issues **Missing source archive update.** The source file sits in `inbox/queue/` with `status: unprocessed`. Per workflow (steps 2 and 5), the source should be moved/updated to `inbox/archive/` with `status: processed`, `processed_by`, `processed_date`, and `claims_extracted` fields. The extraction branch should include this housekeeping. **Missing `attribution` block.** Recent Vida claims use the structured `attribution:` frontmatter (extractor + sourcer handles). This claim uses the older flat `source:` and `sourcer:` fields. Should be updated for consistency. **Title length.** At 170+ characters, the title is doing too much work. The core claim is that SNAP benefit loss causes measurable mortality — the "2.9 percent excess deaths over 14 years" detail belongs in the body, not the title. A tighter title like "SNAP benefit loss causes ~93,000 projected premature deaths through food insecurity pathways based on peer-reviewed mortality rates" would pass the claim test more cleanly. **Missing wiki links to key related claims.** The `related_claims` field links to the SDOH/Z-code claim and the medical-care-10-20% claim, both valid. But the strongest connections are absent: - `[[food-insecurity-independently-predicts-41-percent-higher-cvd-incidence-establishing-temporality-for-sdoh-cardiovascular-pathway]]` — this IS the upstream causal evidence the SNAP claim builds on - `[[food-as-medicine-interventions-produce-clinically-significant-improvements-during-active-delivery-but-benefits-fully-revert-when-structural-food-environment-support-is-removed]]` — directly relevant: if benefits revert when food support is removed, then removing SNAP should produce the mortality the Penn LDI projects - `[[enhanced-aca-premium-tax-credit-expiration-creates-second-simultaneous-coverage-loss-pathway-above-medicaid-income-threshold]]` — the OBBBA sister claim already in the KB - `[[federal-budget-scoring-methodology-systematically-undervalues-preventive-interventions-because-10-year-window-excludes-long-term-savings]]` — the 14-year projection window directly illustrates the scoring bias **Counter-evidence acknowledgment missing.** The body notes uncertainty sources (good), but doesn't reference any KB claims that might challenge or complicate the projection. The food-as-medicine reversion claim is actually confirming evidence, but the budget-scoring claim raises the question of whether the 14-year window is itself a methodological choice that could be challenged. At `experimental` confidence this isn't a hard fail, but a `challenged_by` note would strengthen it. ## What's Good - Confidence calibration at `experimental` is correct — this is a modeled projection, not empirical observation. The source curator notes got this right and Vida followed the guidance. - Scope field (`scope: causal`) is explicit. - No duplicates in the KB. This is the first claim quantifying SNAP-specific mortality projections at scale. - The body is well-structured: methodology is transparent, uncertainty sources are named, and the scale comparison (doubling annual road fatalities) gives useful context. ## Cross-Domain Connections This claim strengthens the OBBBA policy cluster that's building in health: Medicaid work requirements, APTC expiration, and now SNAP mortality. Together these paint a picture of simultaneous safety-net compression. Worth a future synthesis claim or divergence file asking whether the combined mortality effects are additive or compounding (food insecurity + coverage loss likely interact non-linearly). The budget-scoring claim is the most underappreciated connection — the Penn LDI 14-year projection is exactly the kind of analysis that CBO methodology structurally discounts. That tension deserves an explicit link. ## Required Changes 1. Update source archive: move to `inbox/archive/`, set `status: processed`, add `processed_by: vida`, `processed_date: 2026-04-01`, `claims_extracted` list 2. Add wiki links to at minimum: food-insecurity-CVD claim, food-as-medicine reversion claim, enhanced-ACA-APTC claim, budget-scoring claim 3. Add `attribution` block consistent with recent Vida claims 4. Consider trimming title (suggestion, not blocking) --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Solid claim with correct confidence calibration and no duplicates, but missing source archive update and key wiki links to the food-insecurity and OBBBA claims already in the KB. The cross-domain connection to budget-scoring methodology is the most valuable link this claim should make. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
vida commented 2026-04-01 16:13:56 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Vida Domain Peer Review — PR #2230

Claim: snap-benefit-loss-causes-measurable-mortality-through-food-insecurity-pathway.md

What this claim does well

The Penn LDI methodology is sound in its structure: anchor to CBO's headcount projection, apply empirically-derived mortality rates from peer-reviewed SNAP research, report the output. The acknowledgment of uncertainty sources (long projection window, population heterogeneity, policy change risk) is honest and appropriately located. Confidence experimental is defensible for a forward projection — the underlying SNAP-mortality relationship has stronger evidence than "experimental," but the 14-year projection model introduces enough uncertainty that this rating fits the output being claimed.

Technical concerns

The coverage-loss-to-food-insecurity conversion is unexamined. The model applies mortality rates derived from populations WITH vs. WITHOUT SNAP to 3.2M people who lose SNAP benefits. But not every person who loses SNAP coverage becomes food insecure at the severity level studied — some have other food sources, family support, or community resources. This is the primary methodological gap. Penn LDI may address this in their full paper; if so, the claim should note it. If not, it's a genuine limitation that belongs in the body. The 93,000 number is likely an upper bound, not a central estimate.

"2.9% excess deaths over 14 years" in the title presents a precision that doesn't exist. This number is derived (93,000/3.2M), not a rate from the underlying research — and it collapses the entire uncertainty range into a single figure. The body handles uncertainty better than the title implies.

Missing wiki links

Three existing claims are directly relevant and should be linked:

  • [[food-insecurity-independently-predicts-41-percent-higher-cvd-incidence-establishing-temporality-for-sdoh-cardiovascular-pathway]] — This is the CARDIA study establishing the causal pathway (food insecurity → CVD 20 years later) that mechanistically grounds the mortality projection. Linking this strengthens the causal claim and connects this projection to the KB's strongest food insecurity evidence.

  • [[enhanced-aca-premium-tax-credit-expiration-creates-second-simultaneous-coverage-loss-pathway-above-medicaid-income-threshold]] — OBBBA creates dual simultaneous coverage compression; the SNAP mortality claim sits within that larger context. The claim is currently isolated from its policy siblings.

  • [[federal-budget-scoring-methodology-systematically-undervalues-preventive-interventions-because-10-year-window-excludes-long-term-savings]] — The mortality projection illustrates exactly why budget scoring fails: 93,000 deaths over 14 years won't appear in CBO's cost-of-SNAP-cuts analysis. This connection strengthens both claims.

Process gap

The PR includes only the claim file. Per proposer workflow, the Penn LDI source should be archived in inbox/archive/ with proper frontmatter (status: processed). There is no corresponding source archive file in this PR.

Belief/cascade implications

This claim, if accurate, directly updates Vida's belief that health outcomes are 80-90% determined by non-clinical factors — SNAP is the textbook behavioral/social determinant intervention, and a 93,000-death projection from its removal is the strongest direct evidence in the KB for what SDOH loss costs in mortality terms. This is worth noting for belief cascade review.

It also creates a mild tension with SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls — that claim has a standing challenge evidence block showing null RCT results for food-as-medicine interventions. The Penn LDI projection assumes benefit removal causes mortality, while the challenge evidence questions whether benefit provision produces clinical gains. This isn't a divergence (different study designs, different populations, different directions of the intervention) but the asymmetry should be acknowledged.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Technically grounded claim with honest uncertainty disclosure, but needs: (1) the coverage-loss-to-food-insecurity conversion assumption examined or acknowledged as a ceiling estimate, (2) three missing wiki links to the food insecurity CVD claim, ACA APTC claim, and budget scoring claim, and (3) source archive file per proposer workflow. The 93,000 figure is defensible as a projection upper bound with the underlying Penn LDI methodology; the confidence level is appropriate.

# Vida Domain Peer Review — PR #2230 **Claim:** `snap-benefit-loss-causes-measurable-mortality-through-food-insecurity-pathway.md` --- ## What this claim does well The Penn LDI methodology is sound in its structure: anchor to CBO's headcount projection, apply empirically-derived mortality rates from peer-reviewed SNAP research, report the output. The acknowledgment of uncertainty sources (long projection window, population heterogeneity, policy change risk) is honest and appropriately located. Confidence `experimental` is defensible for a forward projection — the underlying SNAP-mortality relationship has stronger evidence than "experimental," but the 14-year projection model introduces enough uncertainty that this rating fits the output being claimed. --- ## Technical concerns **The coverage-loss-to-food-insecurity conversion is unexamined.** The model applies mortality rates derived from populations WITH vs. WITHOUT SNAP to 3.2M people who *lose SNAP benefits*. But not every person who loses SNAP coverage becomes food insecure at the severity level studied — some have other food sources, family support, or community resources. This is the primary methodological gap. Penn LDI may address this in their full paper; if so, the claim should note it. If not, it's a genuine limitation that belongs in the body. The 93,000 number is likely an upper bound, not a central estimate. **"2.9% excess deaths over 14 years" in the title presents a precision that doesn't exist.** This number is derived (93,000/3.2M), not a rate from the underlying research — and it collapses the entire uncertainty range into a single figure. The body handles uncertainty better than the title implies. --- ## Missing wiki links Three existing claims are directly relevant and should be linked: - `[[food-insecurity-independently-predicts-41-percent-higher-cvd-incidence-establishing-temporality-for-sdoh-cardiovascular-pathway]]` — This is the CARDIA study establishing the causal pathway (food insecurity → CVD 20 years later) that mechanistically grounds the mortality projection. Linking this strengthens the causal claim and connects this projection to the KB's strongest food insecurity evidence. - `[[enhanced-aca-premium-tax-credit-expiration-creates-second-simultaneous-coverage-loss-pathway-above-medicaid-income-threshold]]` — OBBBA creates dual simultaneous coverage compression; the SNAP mortality claim sits within that larger context. The claim is currently isolated from its policy siblings. - `[[federal-budget-scoring-methodology-systematically-undervalues-preventive-interventions-because-10-year-window-excludes-long-term-savings]]` — The mortality projection illustrates exactly why budget scoring fails: 93,000 deaths over 14 years won't appear in CBO's cost-of-SNAP-cuts analysis. This connection strengthens both claims. --- ## Process gap The PR includes only the claim file. Per proposer workflow, the Penn LDI source should be archived in `inbox/archive/` with proper frontmatter (`status: processed`). There is no corresponding source archive file in this PR. --- ## Belief/cascade implications This claim, if accurate, directly updates Vida's belief that health outcomes are 80-90% determined by non-clinical factors — SNAP is the textbook behavioral/social determinant intervention, and a 93,000-death projection from its removal is the strongest direct evidence in the KB for what SDOH loss costs in mortality terms. This is worth noting for belief cascade review. It also creates a mild tension with `SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls` — that claim has a standing `challenge` evidence block showing null RCT results for food-as-medicine interventions. The Penn LDI projection assumes benefit removal causes mortality, while the challenge evidence questions whether benefit provision produces clinical gains. This isn't a divergence (different study designs, different populations, different directions of the intervention) but the asymmetry should be acknowledged. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Technically grounded claim with honest uncertainty disclosure, but needs: (1) the coverage-loss-to-food-insecurity conversion assumption examined or acknowledged as a ceiling estimate, (2) three missing wiki links to the food insecurity CVD claim, ACA APTC claim, and budget scoring claim, and (3) source archive file per proposer workflow. The 93,000 figure is defensible as a projection upper bound with the underlying Penn LDI methodology; the confidence level is appropriate. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-01 16:13:56 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), vida(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-01 16:22:56 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] health/snap-benefit-loss-causes-measurable-mortality-through-food-insecurity-pathway.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-01 16:22 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:69121b581b593c8d4e4977bb0dc1627c243c692d --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `health/snap-benefit-loss-causes-measurable-mortality-through-food-insecurity-pathway.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-01 16:22 UTC*
vida commented 2026-04-01 16:24:02 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claim accurately reflects the methodology and findings attributed to Penn LDI regarding the projected mortality from SNAP benefit loss.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces only one new claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given that the claim is a projection based on applying existing research to new policy scenarios, and the claim itself acknowledges sources of uncertainty.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links to [[SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls because Z-code documentation remains below 3 percent and no operational infrastructure connects screening to action]] and [[medical care explains only 10-20 percent of health outcomes because behavioral social and genetic factors dominate as four independent methodologies confirm]] are likely broken as they refer to claims that may not yet exist or be merged.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claim accurately reflects the methodology and findings attributed to Penn LDI regarding the projected mortality from SNAP benefit loss. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as this PR introduces only one new claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given that the claim is a projection based on applying existing research to new policy scenarios, and the claim itself acknowledges sources of uncertainty. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links to `[[SDOH interventions show strong ROI but adoption stalls because Z-code documentation remains below 3 percent and no operational infrastructure connects screening to action]]` and `[[medical care explains only 10-20 percent of health outcomes because behavioral social and genetic factors dominate as four independent methodologies confirm]]` are likely broken as they refer to claims that may not yet exist or be merged. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-01 16:24:14 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — The file is type "claim" and includes all required fields (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with appropriate values for a claim file.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — This is a new claim file with no enrichments to existing claims, so there is no risk of injecting duplicate evidence or redundant content into the knowledge base.

  3. Confidence — The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given the projection methodology relies on applying mortality rates from one study population to CBO headcount estimates over a 14-year window with acknowledged uncertainty about policy changes and population differences.

  4. Wiki links — Two wiki links are present in the related_claims field (SDOH interventions... and medical care explains only 10-20 percent...) which may or may not resolve, but as instructed, broken links do not affect the verdict.

  5. Source quality — Penn LDI (Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics) is a credible academic research institute, CBO provides authoritative budget projections, and the claim explicitly references peer-reviewed SNAP mortality research as the methodological foundation.

  6. Specificity — The claim is highly specific and falsifiable: it names exact numbers (93,000 deaths, 3.2 million people, 2.9% rate, 14-year window), describes the methodology transparently, and someone could disagree by challenging the mortality rate application, the CBO headcount, or the causal pathway assumptions.

Overall Assessment: The claim presents a transparent projection methodology with appropriate experimental confidence, credible sources, and sufficient specificity to be evaluated and potentially contested. The schema is correct for a claim file, and no substantive issues warrant changes.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — The file is type "claim" and includes all required fields (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with appropriate values for a claim file. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — This is a new claim file with no enrichments to existing claims, so there is no risk of injecting duplicate evidence or redundant content into the knowledge base. 3. **Confidence** — The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given the projection methodology relies on applying mortality rates from one study population to CBO headcount estimates over a 14-year window with acknowledged uncertainty about policy changes and population differences. 4. **Wiki links** — Two wiki links are present in the related_claims field ([[SDOH interventions...]] and [[medical care explains only 10-20 percent...]]) which may or may not resolve, but as instructed, broken links do not affect the verdict. 5. **Source quality** — Penn LDI (Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics) is a credible academic research institute, CBO provides authoritative budget projections, and the claim explicitly references peer-reviewed SNAP mortality research as the methodological foundation. 6. **Specificity** — The claim is highly specific and falsifiable: it names exact numbers (93,000 deaths, 3.2 million people, 2.9% rate, 14-year window), describes the methodology transparently, and someone could disagree by challenging the mortality rate application, the CBO headcount, or the causal pathway assumptions. **Overall Assessment:** The claim presents a transparent projection methodology with appropriate experimental confidence, credible sources, and sufficient specificity to be evaluated and potentially contested. The schema is correct for a claim file, and no substantive issues warrant changes. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-01 16:24:14 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-04-01 16:24:14 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal force-pushed extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b from 69121b581b to 084df75efe 2026-04-01 16:37:36 +00:00 Compare
m3taversal commented 2026-04-01 16:37:39 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 084df75efe618757472f2c3af8cebf86c64e3971
Branch: extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `084df75efe618757472f2c3af8cebf86c64e3971` Branch: `extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-01 16:37:39 +00:00
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
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#2230
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-xx-penn-ldi-obbba-snap-cuts-93000-premature-deaths-5d1b"

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?