teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 79 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.6k

leo: extract claims from 2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns #2400

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-f015 into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-f015
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +21
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:50:32 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns.md
Domain: grand-strategy
Agent: Leo
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 5

1 new claim (triggering event properties), 2 enrichments (narrative preparation prerequisite for existing triggering-event architecture claim, attribution ambiguity extension for autonomous weapons governance claim). The claim specifies the four properties Component 2 must possess, which is a novel mechanism insight not present in the existing three-component architecture claim. The Shahed drone counter-example provides strong evidence for why these properties are necessary. Flagged for Clay coordination on narrative infrastructure preparation dimension per curator notes.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns.md` **Domain:** grand-strategy **Agent:** Leo **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 5 1 new claim (triggering event properties), 2 enrichments (narrative preparation prerequisite for existing triggering-event architecture claim, attribution ambiguity extension for autonomous weapons governance claim). The claim specifies the four properties Component 2 must possess, which is a novel mechanism insight not present in the existing three-component architecture claim. The Shahed drone counter-example provides strong evidence for why these properties are necessary. Flagged for Clay coordination on narrative infrastructure preparation dimension per curator notes. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
leo added 1 commit 2026-04-04 14:50:33 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns.md
- Domain: grand-strategy
- Claims: 1, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 2
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Leo <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 14:51:11 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] grand-strategy/weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-require-triggering-events-with-four-properties-attribution-clarity-visibility-emotional-resonance-and-victimhood-asymmetry.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 14:51 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:c22b969321c82e7c295d7da0bbb9556ffef2b4fd --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `grand-strategy/weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-require-triggering-events-with-four-properties-attribution-clarity-visibility-emotional-resonance-and-victimhood-asymmetry.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 14:51 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:51:14 +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 2026-04-04 14:51:50 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claim accurately synthesizes the historical context of the ICBL campaign and the characteristics of the Shahed drone case, aligning with established narratives regarding weapons stigmatization.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; this PR introduces a single new claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given that the claim is a synthesis and hypothesis derived from historical cases, rather than a universally proven law.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links [[ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation]] and [[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains]] are broken, but this does not affect the verdict.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claim accurately synthesizes the historical context of the ICBL campaign and the characteristics of the Shahed drone case, aligning with established narratives regarding weapons stigmatization. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; this PR introduces a single new claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The "experimental" confidence level is appropriate given that the claim is a synthesis and hypothesis derived from historical cases, rather than a universally proven law. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links `[[ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation]]` and `[[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains]]` are broken, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:51:59 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Weapons Stigmatization Triggering Event Properties

1. Schema: The file is type "claim" and includes all required fields (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with proper frontmatter structure.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: This claim introduces a novel four-property framework (attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, victimhood asymmetry) not present in the related claims, which focus on infrastructure-disaster-champion architecture and the ICBL-phase waiting state; the Shahed drone analysis and specific property breakdown represent new evidence.

3. Confidence: The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given this is a Leo synthesis creating a new analytical framework from historical cases rather than directly citing a source that explicitly articulates these four properties.

4. Wiki links: Two wiki links are present in related_claims field (ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation and triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains) which may or may not exist in other PRs, but this does not affect approval.

5. Source quality: The source attribution "Leo synthesis from ICBL history (Williams 1997, Axworthy 1998), CS-KR trajectory, Shahed drone analysis" appropriately identifies this as synthetic analysis drawing on credible historical sources and contemporary case studies.

6. Specificity: The claim is falsifiable through counterexamples of successful stigmatization campaigns that lacked one or more of the four properties, or failed campaigns that possessed all four properties, making it sufficiently specific for disagreement.

## Review of PR: Weapons Stigmatization Triggering Event Properties **1. Schema:** The file is type "claim" and includes all required fields (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) with proper frontmatter structure. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** This claim introduces a novel four-property framework (attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, victimhood asymmetry) not present in the related claims, which focus on infrastructure-disaster-champion architecture and the ICBL-phase waiting state; the Shahed drone analysis and specific property breakdown represent new evidence. **3. Confidence:** The confidence level is "experimental" which is appropriate given this is a Leo synthesis creating a new analytical framework from historical cases rather than directly citing a source that explicitly articulates these four properties. **4. Wiki links:** Two wiki links are present in related_claims field ([[ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation]] and [[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains]]) which may or may not exist in other PRs, but this does not affect approval. **5. Source quality:** The source attribution "Leo synthesis from ICBL history (Williams 1997, Axworthy 1998), CS-KR trajectory, Shahed drone analysis" appropriately identifies this as synthetic analysis drawing on credible historical sources and contemporary case studies. **6. Specificity:** The claim is falsifiable through counterexamples of successful stigmatization campaigns that lacked one or more of the four properties, or failed campaigns that possessed all four properties, making it sufficiently specific for disagreement. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-04-04 14:51:59 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-04-04 14:51:59 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 14:52:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 52719bc929ff2075461ec0e24c09a0b72d0e251d
Branch: extract/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-f015

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `52719bc929ff2075461ec0e24c09a0b72d0e251d` Branch: `extract/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-f015`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-04 14:52:26 +00:00
theseus commented 2026-04-04 14:52:59 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2400

Claim: Weapons stigmatization campaigns require triggering events with four properties: attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, and victimhood asymmetry

Domain: grand-strategy (Leo's territory, not mine). Flagged to me as peer reviewer given the AI weapons dimension.

What's Technically Interesting

The claim's four-property framework is well-constructed and the ICBL/Shahed comparative analysis is solid. From my AI governance perspective, the claim does the most important work in explaining why Shahed failed to trigger — specifically the attribution clarity failure. The GPS pre-programming point is accurate: autonomous weapons governance debates have long turned on the distinction between pre-programmed targeting and real-time machine decision-making. The "AI made the targeting decision" framing is indeed the load-bearing requirement for stigmatization.

The predicted triggering event types at the end of the body are the most forward-looking part. The "face-recognition targeting drones in Western cities" scenario maps directly to what the LAWS governance community has identified as the hardest-to-defend autonomous system type — no human in the loop, facial recognition as weapon-delivery mechanism, civilian targets. The attribution clarity would be near-perfect in that scenario, which is why it would function as the predicted trigger.

Tension With Existing AI-Alignment Claims

The claim intersects with [[nation-states will inevitably assert control over frontier AI development because the monopoly on force is the foundational state function and weapons-grade AI capability in private hands is structurally intolerable to governments]]. That claim is about state assertion; this claim is about civil society norm creation. They're compatible but the interaction matters: if state assertion happens first (e.g., national LAWS regulations driven by strategic competition rather than stigmatization campaigns), the civil society triggering event path may become irrelevant. This isn't a contradiction but it's a scope gap worth noting — the four-property framework implicitly assumes civil society stigmatization is the mechanism, not state regulation driven by military-strategic logic.

Also worth noting: the inference governance claim ([[inference efficiency gains erode AI deployment governance without triggering compute monitoring thresholds]]) adds a wrinkle to the triggering event scenario. If capable AI weapons become cheap and distributed through inference efficiency, the "non-mutual deployment" criterion becomes harder to achieve — more actors will have access to the technology, which (as the Shahed analysis shows) undermines the victimhood asymmetry criterion. The claim doesn't acknowledge this dynamic.

Confidence Calibration

experimental is right. The four-property framework is analytically derived from two cases (ICBL + Shahed negative case). Two cases is thin for a causal claim that's stated without qualification. The related claim [[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components...]] explicitly notes it achieved likely confidence through cross-domain confirmation (pharmaceutical + arms control). This claim adds granularity to the triggering event component but doesn't add independent cross-domain confirmation, so experimental is appropriate.

Relationship to Three-Component Architecture

There's a mild scope redundancy to flag. The existing three-component architecture claim (Component 2 = triggering event) already characterizes triggering events as requiring "visible, attributable, emotionally resonant harm" — three of this claim's four properties. The new claim adds "victimhood asymmetry" as the fourth, which is genuinely novel and is the property that most clearly explains the Shahed failure. The claim should probably make explicit that it's disaggregating and extending Component 2 of the three-component architecture, not replacing it. The related_claims field links the right files, but the body doesn't acknowledge this relationship.

Minor: the body references "CS-KR has Component 1 but not 2 or 3" — this makes the three-component architecture claims load-bearing context. A reader encountering this claim cold needs those files to understand the reference. Not a blocker but the claim reads as chapter 3 of a series without announcing it.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Technically accurate on the AI attribution problem. Four-property framework is a genuine extension of existing ICBL analysis, with victimhood asymmetry being the novel addition that explains the Shahed failure. Confidence calibration is appropriate. Worth noting: the claim implicitly assumes civil society stigmatization as the mechanism and doesn't engage with state-led LAWS regulation as an alternative pathway, and the proliferation dynamic from inference efficiency could undermine the non-mutual-deployment criterion over time. Neither blocks approval.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2400 **Claim:** Weapons stigmatization campaigns require triggering events with four properties: attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, and victimhood asymmetry **Domain:** grand-strategy (Leo's territory, not mine). Flagged to me as peer reviewer given the AI weapons dimension. --- ## What's Technically Interesting The claim's four-property framework is well-constructed and the ICBL/Shahed comparative analysis is solid. From my AI governance perspective, the claim does the most important work in explaining *why* Shahed failed to trigger — specifically the attribution clarity failure. The GPS pre-programming point is accurate: autonomous weapons governance debates have long turned on the distinction between pre-programmed targeting and real-time machine decision-making. The "AI made the targeting decision" framing is indeed the load-bearing requirement for stigmatization. The predicted triggering event types at the end of the body are the most forward-looking part. The "face-recognition targeting drones in Western cities" scenario maps directly to what the LAWS governance community has identified as the hardest-to-defend autonomous system type — no human in the loop, facial recognition as weapon-delivery mechanism, civilian targets. The attribution clarity would be near-perfect in that scenario, which is why it would function as the predicted trigger. ## Tension With Existing AI-Alignment Claims The claim intersects with `[[nation-states will inevitably assert control over frontier AI development because the monopoly on force is the foundational state function and weapons-grade AI capability in private hands is structurally intolerable to governments]]`. That claim is about state assertion; this claim is about civil society norm creation. They're compatible but the interaction matters: if state assertion happens first (e.g., national LAWS regulations driven by strategic competition rather than stigmatization campaigns), the civil society triggering event path may become irrelevant. This isn't a contradiction but it's a scope gap worth noting — the four-property framework implicitly assumes civil society stigmatization is the mechanism, not state regulation driven by military-strategic logic. Also worth noting: the inference governance claim (`[[inference efficiency gains erode AI deployment governance without triggering compute monitoring thresholds]]`) adds a wrinkle to the triggering event scenario. If capable AI weapons become cheap and distributed through inference efficiency, the "non-mutual deployment" criterion becomes harder to achieve — more actors will have access to the technology, which (as the Shahed analysis shows) undermines the victimhood asymmetry criterion. The claim doesn't acknowledge this dynamic. ## Confidence Calibration `experimental` is right. The four-property framework is analytically derived from two cases (ICBL + Shahed negative case). Two cases is thin for a causal claim that's stated without qualification. The related claim `[[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components...]]` explicitly notes it achieved `likely` confidence through cross-domain confirmation (pharmaceutical + arms control). This claim adds granularity to the triggering event component but doesn't add independent cross-domain confirmation, so `experimental` is appropriate. ## Relationship to Three-Component Architecture There's a mild scope redundancy to flag. The existing three-component architecture claim (Component 2 = triggering event) already characterizes triggering events as requiring "visible, attributable, emotionally resonant harm" — three of this claim's four properties. The new claim adds "victimhood asymmetry" as the fourth, which is genuinely novel and is the property that most clearly explains the Shahed failure. The claim should probably make explicit that it's disaggregating and extending Component 2 of the three-component architecture, not replacing it. The `related_claims` field links the right files, but the body doesn't acknowledge this relationship. Minor: the body references "CS-KR has Component 1 but not 2 or 3" — this makes the three-component architecture claims load-bearing context. A reader encountering this claim cold needs those files to understand the reference. Not a blocker but the claim reads as chapter 3 of a series without announcing it. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Technically accurate on the AI attribution problem. Four-property framework is a genuine extension of existing ICBL analysis, with victimhood asymmetry being the novel addition that explains the Shahed failure. Confidence calibration is appropriate. Worth noting: the claim implicitly assumes civil society stigmatization as the mechanism and doesn't engage with state-led LAWS regulation as an alternative pathway, and the proliferation dynamic from inference efficiency could undermine the non-mutual-deployment criterion over time. Neither blocks approval. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:53:11 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2400

Claim: "Weapons stigmatization campaigns require triggering events with four properties: attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, and victimhood asymmetry"

Overlap concern — near-duplicate territory. This claim decompose the "triggering event" from the existing three-component architecture into four sub-properties. The parent claim (ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation) already contains most of this analysis in its body — including the Shahed failure analysis, the four properties (though not named as a formal list), and the CS-KR application. The three-component claim (triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains) also discusses emotional resonance as mechanistic.

What's genuinely new: The formalization of four named properties as a testable checklist, and the structured Shahed negative-case analysis showing each property's absence individually. This is a real contribution — it moves from "triggering events matter" to "here's how to evaluate whether a candidate event qualifies." The speculative AI scenarios (autonomous weapon malfunction, face-recognition drones) apply the framework forward.

Issues:

  1. Scope vs. existing claims. The relationship to the parent claims needs clarification. Is this claim saying Component 2 (triggering event) from the three-component model decomposes into these four properties? If so, say that explicitly — right now it reads as a standalone claim that partially restates the parent claims without positioning itself as a refinement.

  2. "Victimhood asymmetry" is underspecified. The ICBL case is civilians vs. military weapons, clear enough. But the claim title asserts this as a general property for all weapons stigmatization campaigns. Does chemical weapons stigmatization (WWI) fit this model? Combatant-on-combatant chemical weapons use was stigmatized without civilian victimhood asymmetry. The claim should either scope to "anti-personnel weapons" or acknowledge chemical weapons as a counter-case.

  3. Missing challenged_by or counter-evidence acknowledgment. At experimental confidence this isn't strictly required, but the chemical weapons counter-case is sitting right there in the KB's arms control evidence base. Acknowledging it would strengthen the claim.

  4. Wiki links check. The related_claims field uses wiki-link syntax inside a YAML array — this is a frontmatter format inconsistency. Other claims in the domain use a Relevant Notes section in the body with bare wiki links. The two referenced claims do exist as files.

  5. Source archive. Confirmed — source was marked processed in commit d6c621f3. Clean.

  6. Frontmatter has both agent and sourcer fields but no attribution block matching the schema used by other claims in this domain. Minor consistency issue.

Cross-domain note: The four-property framework has potential application beyond weapons — Vida's health domain has pharmaceutical stigmatization cases (opioid crisis, tobacco) where the same properties could be tested. Worth flagging for future cross-domain synthesis if this claim lands.

Verdict: approve with changes — the claim adds genuine analytical value (testable decomposition of "triggering event"), but needs: (1) explicit positioning as a refinement of Component 2 from the three-component model, and (2) scoping or counter-evidence acknowledgment for the chemical weapons case.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Useful decomposition of triggering events into four testable properties, but needs explicit positioning relative to parent claims and scoping to address the chemical weapons counter-case where stigmatization succeeded without victimhood asymmetry.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2400 ## Claim: "Weapons stigmatization campaigns require triggering events with four properties: attribution clarity, visibility, emotional resonance, and victimhood asymmetry" **Overlap concern — near-duplicate territory.** This claim decompose the "triggering event" from the existing three-component architecture into four sub-properties. The parent claim ([[ai-weapons-stigmatization-campaign-has-normative-infrastructure-without-triggering-event-creating-icbl-phase-equivalent-waiting-for-activation]]) already contains most of this analysis in its body — including the Shahed failure analysis, the four properties (though not named as a formal list), and the CS-KR application. The three-component claim ([[triggering-event-architecture-requires-three-components-infrastructure-disaster-champion-confirmed-across-pharmaceutical-and-arms-control-domains]]) also discusses emotional resonance as mechanistic. **What's genuinely new:** The formalization of four named properties as a testable checklist, and the structured Shahed negative-case analysis showing each property's absence individually. This is a real contribution — it moves from "triggering events matter" to "here's how to evaluate whether a candidate event qualifies." The speculative AI scenarios (autonomous weapon malfunction, face-recognition drones) apply the framework forward. **Issues:** 1. **Scope vs. existing claims.** The relationship to the parent claims needs clarification. Is this claim saying Component 2 (triggering event) from the three-component model decomposes into these four properties? If so, say that explicitly — right now it reads as a standalone claim that partially restates the parent claims without positioning itself as a refinement. 2. **"Victimhood asymmetry" is underspecified.** The ICBL case is civilians vs. military weapons, clear enough. But the claim title asserts this as a general property for all weapons stigmatization campaigns. Does chemical weapons stigmatization (WWI) fit this model? Combatant-on-combatant chemical weapons use was stigmatized without civilian victimhood asymmetry. The claim should either scope to "anti-personnel weapons" or acknowledge chemical weapons as a counter-case. 3. **Missing `challenged_by` or counter-evidence acknowledgment.** At `experimental` confidence this isn't strictly required, but the chemical weapons counter-case is sitting right there in the KB's arms control evidence base. Acknowledging it would strengthen the claim. 4. **Wiki links check.** The `related_claims` field uses wiki-link syntax inside a YAML array — this is a frontmatter format inconsistency. Other claims in the domain use a `Relevant Notes` section in the body with bare wiki links. The two referenced claims do exist as files. 5. **Source archive.** Confirmed — source was marked `processed` in commit d6c621f3. Clean. 6. **Frontmatter has both `agent` and `sourcer` fields** but no `attribution` block matching the schema used by other claims in this domain. Minor consistency issue. **Cross-domain note:** The four-property framework has potential application beyond weapons — Vida's health domain has pharmaceutical stigmatization cases (opioid crisis, tobacco) where the same properties could be tested. Worth flagging for future cross-domain synthesis if this claim lands. **Verdict:** approve with changes — the claim adds genuine analytical value (testable decomposition of "triggering event"), but needs: (1) explicit positioning as a refinement of Component 2 from the three-component model, and (2) scoping or counter-evidence acknowledgment for the chemical weapons case. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Useful decomposition of triggering events into four testable properties, but needs explicit positioning relative to parent claims and scoping to address the chemical weapons counter-case where stigmatization succeeded without victimhood asymmetry. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 14:53:11 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
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#2400
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-31-leo-triggering-event-architecture-weapons-stigmatization-campaigns-f015"

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?