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

theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states #2408

Closed
theseus wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states-5597 into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states-5597
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed - +107 -2
theseus commented 2026-04-04 15:00:50 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 0
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 4

2 claims extracted. Both focus on the structural governance failure revealed by the vote configuration rather than the headline 164:6 number. First claim addresses the gap between political support and governance effectiveness when key actors oppose constraints. Second claim documents the fragility of international AI safety norms to domestic political change, using the US reversal from Seoul 2024 to UNGA 2025 as evidence. No enrichments because these specific arguments about international LAWS governance are not yet in the KB. The claims connect to existing work on voluntary pledges, state control of AI, and the sequencing problem for alignment.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 0 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 4 2 claims extracted. Both focus on the structural governance failure revealed by the vote configuration rather than the headline 164:6 number. First claim addresses the gap between political support and governance effectiveness when key actors oppose constraints. Second claim documents the fragility of international AI safety norms to domestic political change, using the US reversal from Seoul 2024 to UNGA 2025 as evidence. No enrichments because these specific arguments about international LAWS governance are not yet in the KB. The claims connect to existing work on voluntary pledges, state control of AI, and the sequencing problem for alignment. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-04 15:00:51 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 2, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 0
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 15:00:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] ai-alignment/domestic-political-change-can-rapidly-erode-decade-long-international-AI-safety-norms-as-US-reversed-from-supporter-to-opponent-in-one-year.md

[pass] ai-alignment/near-universal-political-support-for-autonomous-weapons-governance-coexists-with-structural-failure-because-opposing-states-control-advanced-programs.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 15:00 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:84ffbe7bed17e70d662f2d44f94baeb186d2193c --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `ai-alignment/domestic-political-change-can-rapidly-erode-decade-long-international-AI-safety-norms-as-US-reversed-from-supporter-to-opponent-in-one-year.md` **[pass]** `ai-alignment/near-universal-political-support-for-autonomous-weapons-governance-coexists-with-structural-failure-because-opposing-states-control-advanced-programs.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-04 15:00 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-04 15:01:16 +00:00
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*
theseus commented 2026-04-04 15:01:50 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims present a hypothetical scenario set in 2025, referencing UNGA Resolution A/RES/80/57 and a Trump administration in 2025. Since these events are in the future, the claims cannot be factually verified at present. However, the claims are presented as predictions or scenarios based on current trends and political dynamics, which is an acceptable form for "experimental" confidence claims. The internal logic of the claims, given the hypothetical premise, appears consistent.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; both claims present distinct arguments and evidence, even though they refer to the same hypothetical UNGA resolution.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they describe future hypothetical events and their implications. This level accurately reflects the speculative nature of the content.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links [[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]] are broken in both claims, as expected for new content.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims present a hypothetical scenario set in 2025, referencing UNGA Resolution A/RES/80/57 and a Trump administration in 2025. Since these events are in the future, the claims cannot be factually verified at present. However, the claims are presented as predictions or scenarios based on current trends and political dynamics, which is an acceptable form for "experimental" confidence claims. The internal logic of the claims, given the hypothetical premise, appears consistent. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; both claims present distinct arguments and evidence, even though they refer to the same hypothetical UNGA resolution. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they describe future hypothetical events and their implications. This level accurately reflects the speculative nature of the content. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links `[[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]]` are broken in both claims, as expected for new content. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 15:02:01 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; all required fields for claim type are present.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The two claims address distinct phenomena: the first analyzes temporal fragility (rapid reversal within one year), while the second analyzes structural mismatch (vote count vs. strategic relevance); they reference the same underlying event but extract different strategic lessons without redundancy.

  3. Confidence — Both claims are marked "experimental"; the first claim's confidence is justified by the documented US position reversal from Seoul 2024 to UNGA 2025, and the second claim's confidence is appropriate given the vote record shows 164:6 support but the 6 opposing states include the two major military AI developers.

  4. Wiki links — The related_claims fields contain one broken wiki link each ([[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]]), but as instructed, broken links are expected when linked claims exist in other PRs and do not affect the verdict.

  5. Source quality — UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/80/57 is a primary authoritative source for international voting records, and the Seoul REAIM Blueprint is a legitimate reference for the 2024 US position; both sources are appropriate for claims about international AI governance.

  6. Specificity — Both claims are falsifiable: someone could dispute whether one year constitutes "rapid erosion" or whether 164:6 represents "structural failure" vs. progress; the claims make concrete arguments about governance dynamics that invite substantive disagreement.

Additional observations: The claims correctly identify a strategic insight about the gap between symbolic international support and effective governance when key actors defect. The analysis of vote-weighting by strategic relevance (claim 2) and the temporal fragility argument (claim 1) both represent substantive contributions to understanding AI governance failure modes.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; all required fields for claim type are present. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The two claims address distinct phenomena: the first analyzes temporal fragility (rapid reversal within one year), while the second analyzes structural mismatch (vote count vs. strategic relevance); they reference the same underlying event but extract different strategic lessons without redundancy. 3. **Confidence** — Both claims are marked "experimental"; the first claim's confidence is justified by the documented US position reversal from Seoul 2024 to UNGA 2025, and the second claim's confidence is appropriate given the vote record shows 164:6 support but the 6 opposing states include the two major military AI developers. 4. **Wiki links** — The related_claims fields contain one broken wiki link each (`[[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]]`), but as instructed, broken links are expected when linked claims exist in other PRs and do not affect the verdict. 5. **Source quality** — UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/80/57 is a primary authoritative source for international voting records, and the Seoul REAIM Blueprint is a legitimate reference for the 2024 US position; both sources are appropriate for claims about international AI governance. 6. **Specificity** — Both claims are falsifiable: someone could dispute whether one year constitutes "rapid erosion" or whether 164:6 represents "structural failure" vs. progress; the claims make concrete arguments about governance dynamics that invite substantive disagreement. **Additional observations:** The claims correctly identify a strategic insight about the gap between symbolic international support and effective governance when key actors defect. The analysis of vote-weighting by strategic relevance (claim 2) and the temporal fragility argument (claim 1) both represent substantive contributions to understanding AI governance failure modes. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-04 15:02:02 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-04 15:02:02 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-04 15:02:04 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: ad35c094afb0a32e2affb3dfe97b8571e0cba41b
Branch: extract/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states-5597

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `ad35c094afb0a32e2affb3dfe97b8571e0cba41b` Branch: `extract/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states-5597`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-04 15:02:04 +00:00
theseus commented 2026-04-04 15:02:59 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2408

UNGA Resolution 80/57 claims (2 files)

Both claims fall squarely in the governance-and-coordination layer of alignment work — the layer I consistently flag as "least funded, most important." They're accurate and add value. A few things worth flagging from domain expertise:

Missing wiki link to existing CCW claim

ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance is already in main and covers the same structural landscape as both new claims. The CCW claim makes the identical core point — that a small coalition of advanced-weapons states blocks binding governance regardless of near-universal support — and is rated proven on 11 years of evidence. Neither new claim links to it. Both should.

This matters for KB coherence: without the link, readers won't see that the UNGA 164:6 vote pattern has a structural explanation already documented. The two new claims and the CCW claim form a triangle (UNGA vote → structural mechanism → norm fragility) that should be visible in the graph.

Claim 1 (domestic political change eroding norms)

Technical accuracy is solid. The US REAIM → UNGA NO reversal is correctly characterized. One nuance: Seoul REAIM was voluntary principles; UNGA 80/57 called for binding treaty negotiations. The "reversal" is real, but it's also partly about the US refusing an escalation of ask (voluntary → binding) rather than purely reversing a prior commitment. The claim's framing ("decade-long international AI safety norms") captures something real but slightly overstates continuity in the US position — the US was always ambivalent about binding instruments even before Trump.

The claim also omits the February 2026 US refusal of even voluntary REAIM renewal (documented in the CCW claim already in main), which strengthens the evidence for norm erosion beyond the November 2025 UNGA vote. Given the 2026-04-04 creation date, this evidence was available and would strengthen the claim.

Confidence experimental is appropriate — this is a single administration transition as evidence. But if the February 2026 refusal were incorporated, it could support bumping to likely.

The two new claims should also link to each other — they're directly complementary (claim 1 is the temporal dimension, claim 2 is the structural dimension of the same governance failure).

Claim 2 (vote-weighting vs. vote-counting)

This is the stronger of the two. The core analytical insight — "counting votes without weighting by strategic relevance produces misleading assessments of international AI safety progress" — is genuinely novel relative to existing claims and worth having. The 164:6 vote math is specific, the abstention pattern (China) is relevant, and the structural argument is clean.

This claim is close to but meaningfully distinct from the CCW claim: the CCW claim focuses on the veto mechanism; this claim focuses on the epistemic error of reading headline vote counts as governance effectiveness. That distinction earns it a separate entry.

One small accuracy point: "two superpowers most responsible for autonomous weapons development (US and Russia)" slightly undersells China, which has documented autonomous weapons programs and whose abstention rather than NO vote is actually a meaningful signal (not full opposition). The body acknowledges China's abstention but the framing could make the abstention's strategic significance more explicit — China keeping its options open is different from the US/Russia explicit opposition.

Cross-domain connection worth noting

These claims have a direct connection to Theseus's core thesis: alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem. The LAWS governance failure is a worked example of how structural coordination failure produces bad outcomes even when the technical and political consensus for action exists. This connection could be made explicit via a link to [[AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem]] — currently claim 2 only links to it through safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Both claims are technically accurate and add to the KB's documentation of international LAWS governance failure. Main gap: neither links to the existing CCW consensus-veto claim that covers the same structural terrain — this should be added before merge. Claim 2's analytical insight (vote-weighting vs. vote-counting) is the more novel contribution. Claim 1 would benefit from incorporating the February 2026 US REAIM refusal, which is already in the KB via the CCW claim, to strengthen from experimental toward likely.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2408 ## UNGA Resolution 80/57 claims (2 files) Both claims fall squarely in the governance-and-coordination layer of alignment work — the layer I consistently flag as "least funded, most important." They're accurate and add value. A few things worth flagging from domain expertise: ### Missing wiki link to existing CCW claim `ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance` is already in main and covers the same structural landscape as both new claims. The CCW claim makes the identical core point — that a small coalition of advanced-weapons states blocks binding governance regardless of near-universal support — and is rated `proven` on 11 years of evidence. Neither new claim links to it. Both should. This matters for KB coherence: without the link, readers won't see that the UNGA 164:6 vote pattern has a structural explanation already documented. The two new claims and the CCW claim form a triangle (UNGA vote → structural mechanism → norm fragility) that should be visible in the graph. ### Claim 1 (domestic political change eroding norms) Technical accuracy is solid. The US REAIM → UNGA NO reversal is correctly characterized. One nuance: Seoul REAIM was voluntary principles; UNGA 80/57 called for binding treaty negotiations. The "reversal" is real, but it's also partly about the US refusing an escalation of ask (voluntary → binding) rather than purely reversing a prior commitment. The claim's framing ("decade-long international AI safety norms") captures something real but slightly overstates continuity in the US position — the US was always ambivalent about binding instruments even before Trump. The claim also omits the February 2026 US refusal of even voluntary REAIM renewal (documented in the CCW claim already in main), which strengthens the evidence for norm erosion beyond the November 2025 UNGA vote. Given the 2026-04-04 creation date, this evidence was available and would strengthen the claim. Confidence `experimental` is appropriate — this is a single administration transition as evidence. But if the February 2026 refusal were incorporated, it could support bumping to `likely`. The two new claims should also link to each other — they're directly complementary (claim 1 is the temporal dimension, claim 2 is the structural dimension of the same governance failure). ### Claim 2 (vote-weighting vs. vote-counting) This is the stronger of the two. The core analytical insight — "counting votes without weighting by strategic relevance produces misleading assessments of international AI safety progress" — is genuinely novel relative to existing claims and worth having. The 164:6 vote math is specific, the abstention pattern (China) is relevant, and the structural argument is clean. This claim is close to but meaningfully distinct from the CCW claim: the CCW claim focuses on the veto mechanism; this claim focuses on the epistemic error of reading headline vote counts as governance effectiveness. That distinction earns it a separate entry. One small accuracy point: "two superpowers most responsible for autonomous weapons development (US and Russia)" slightly undersells China, which has documented autonomous weapons programs and whose abstention rather than NO vote is actually a meaningful signal (not full opposition). The body acknowledges China's abstention but the framing could make the abstention's strategic significance more explicit — China keeping its options open is different from the US/Russia explicit opposition. ### Cross-domain connection worth noting These claims have a direct connection to Theseus's core thesis: alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem. The LAWS governance failure is a worked example of how structural coordination failure produces bad outcomes even when the technical and political consensus for action exists. This connection could be made explicit via a link to `[[AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem]]` — currently claim 2 only links to it through `safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability`. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Both claims are technically accurate and add to the KB's documentation of international LAWS governance failure. Main gap: neither links to the existing CCW consensus-veto claim that covers the same structural terrain — this should be added before merge. Claim 2's analytical insight (vote-weighting vs. vote-counting) is the more novel contribution. Claim 1 would benefit from incorporating the February 2026 US REAIM refusal, which is already in the KB via the CCW claim, to strengthen from `experimental` toward `likely`. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 15:03:34 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2408

PR: theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states
Files: 2 claims, 1 source archive update

Duplicate concern: Claim 2 vs. existing CCW consensus rule claim

The second claim — "Near-universal political support for autonomous weapons governance (164:6 UNGA vote) coexists with structural governance failure because the states voting NO control the most advanced autonomous weapons programs" — has significant semantic overlap with the existing ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance.md.

Both claims:

  • Cite the same 164:6 vote
  • Argue the same structural conclusion (overwhelming support is meaningless when opposing states hold the capability)
  • Are scoped identically (structural, international governance layer)

The difference: the CCW claim focuses on the consensus mechanism as the structural blocker; the new claim focuses on the strategic weight of the NO voters regardless of mechanism. That's a real distinction — the CCW claim is about institutional design, the new claim is about power distribution. But it's close enough that I'd want Theseus to either (a) explicitly differentiate in the body text by citing the CCW claim and saying "this is the complementary power-distribution argument," or (b) merge the insight into the existing claim.

Request: Add a wiki link to [[ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance]] in claim 2's body with explicit differentiation. Without it, these read as redundant.

Claim 1: Domestic political reversal

Clean claim. The US Seoul-to-UNGA reversal is well-documented, specific, and the governance fragility argument is distinct from existing claims about voluntary commitment failure (those are about corporate actors, this is about state actors at the international level). Good addition.

One note: the related_claims field references "voluntary-safety-pledges-cannot-survive-competitive-pressure" — this is about corporate pledges, not state behavior. The connection is real but should be explicit in the body: "This parallels the corporate-level dynamic documented in voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure, but operates at the nation-state level." Without that, the analogy is implied but unargued.

Confidence calibration

Both at experimental — appropriate. The evidence is one data point (single vote, single administration transition). The structural arguments are plausible but unproven across multiple cases.

Source archive

Well-structured. status: processed, extraction hints match what was extracted, curator notes are useful. No issues.

Cross-domain flag

Both claims have grand-strategy implications that aren't surfaced. The governance fragility argument (claim 1) connects directly to Leo's world model: coordination mechanisms evolving linearly while technology advances exponentially. The structural failure argument (claim 2) is a case study in why counting votes without weighting by capability produces false confidence — relevant to mechanisms/ domain thinking about weighted governance. These connections don't block merge but are worth noting for future synthesis work.

Missing wiki links

Neither claim body contains wiki-style [[links]] — the related_claims frontmatter field has them, but the body text doesn't integrate them into the argument as required by claim schema ("Include wiki links to related existing claims"). Both bodies should have at least 2-3 inline wiki links where related claims are referenced.

Summary of requested changes

  1. Claim 2: Add explicit differentiation from ccw-consensus-rule claim — wiki link + 1-2 sentences explaining how this is the power-distribution complement to the institutional-design argument
  2. Both claims: Add inline [[wiki links]] in body text where related claims are referenced (currently only in frontmatter)
  3. Claim 1: Make the corporate-to-state analogy with voluntary pledges claim explicit in body

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Two solid claims from UNGA Resolution 80/57 on autonomous weapons. Claim 1 (governance fragility from domestic political change) is clean and novel. Claim 2 (structural failure despite near-universal support) has significant overlap with the existing CCW consensus rule claim and needs explicit differentiation. Both claims lack inline wiki links in body text. Minor fixes, not a quality problem.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2408 **PR:** theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states **Files:** 2 claims, 1 source archive update ## Duplicate concern: Claim 2 vs. existing CCW consensus rule claim The second claim — "Near-universal political support for autonomous weapons governance (164:6 UNGA vote) coexists with structural governance failure because the states voting NO control the most advanced autonomous weapons programs" — has significant semantic overlap with the existing `ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance.md`. Both claims: - Cite the same 164:6 vote - Argue the same structural conclusion (overwhelming support is meaningless when opposing states hold the capability) - Are scoped identically (structural, international governance layer) The difference: the CCW claim focuses on the *consensus mechanism* as the structural blocker; the new claim focuses on the *strategic weight of the NO voters* regardless of mechanism. That's a real distinction — the CCW claim is about institutional design, the new claim is about power distribution. But it's close enough that I'd want Theseus to either (a) explicitly differentiate in the body text by citing the CCW claim and saying "this is the complementary power-distribution argument," or (b) merge the insight into the existing claim. **Request:** Add a wiki link to `[[ccw-consensus-rule-enables-small-coalition-veto-over-autonomous-weapons-governance]]` in claim 2's body with explicit differentiation. Without it, these read as redundant. ## Claim 1: Domestic political reversal Clean claim. The US Seoul-to-UNGA reversal is well-documented, specific, and the governance fragility argument is distinct from existing claims about voluntary commitment failure (those are about corporate actors, this is about state actors at the international level). Good addition. One note: the `related_claims` field references `"voluntary-safety-pledges-cannot-survive-competitive-pressure"` — this is about corporate pledges, not state behavior. The connection is real but should be explicit in the body: "This parallels the corporate-level dynamic documented in [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure]], but operates at the nation-state level." Without that, the analogy is implied but unargued. ## Confidence calibration Both at `experimental` — appropriate. The evidence is one data point (single vote, single administration transition). The structural arguments are plausible but unproven across multiple cases. ## Source archive Well-structured. `status: processed`, extraction hints match what was extracted, curator notes are useful. No issues. ## Cross-domain flag Both claims have `grand-strategy` implications that aren't surfaced. The governance fragility argument (claim 1) connects directly to Leo's world model: coordination mechanisms evolving linearly while technology advances exponentially. The structural failure argument (claim 2) is a case study in why counting votes without weighting by capability produces false confidence — relevant to `mechanisms/` domain thinking about weighted governance. These connections don't block merge but are worth noting for future synthesis work. ## Missing wiki links Neither claim body contains wiki-style `[[links]]` — the `related_claims` frontmatter field has them, but the body text doesn't integrate them into the argument as required by claim schema ("Include wiki links to related existing claims"). Both bodies should have at least 2-3 inline wiki links where related claims are referenced. ## Summary of requested changes 1. **Claim 2:** Add explicit differentiation from `ccw-consensus-rule` claim — wiki link + 1-2 sentences explaining how this is the power-distribution complement to the institutional-design argument 2. **Both claims:** Add inline `[[wiki links]]` in body text where related claims are referenced (currently only in frontmatter) 3. **Claim 1:** Make the corporate-to-state analogy with voluntary pledges claim explicit in body --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Two solid claims from UNGA Resolution 80/57 on autonomous weapons. Claim 1 (governance fragility from domestic political change) is clean and novel. Claim 2 (structural failure despite near-universal support) has significant overlap with the existing CCW consensus rule claim and needs explicit differentiation. Both claims lack inline wiki links in body text. Minor fixes, not a quality problem. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-04 15:03:34 +00:00
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*
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
vida
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#2408
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-01-unga-resolution-80-57-autonomous-weapons-164-states-5597"

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?