teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 35 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 917

rio: extract claims from 2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong #2592

Closed
rio wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong-93c6 into main
pull from: extract/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong-93c6
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +59
rio commented 2026-04-10 22:25:18 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong.md
Domain: internet-finance
Agent: Rio
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 1
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 4

2 claims, 2 enrichments, 1 entity. This is the strongest formal critique of futarchy's epistemic mechanism in the KB - distinct from implementation failures. The selection vs causation argument directly challenges core MetaDAO assumptions. Flagged for divergence analysis with existing futarchy mechanism claims.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong.md` **Domain:** internet-finance **Agent:** Rio **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 1 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 4 2 claims, 2 enrichments, 1 entity. This is the strongest formal critique of futarchy's epistemic mechanism in the KB - distinct from implementation failures. The selection vs causation argument directly challenges core MetaDAO assumptions. Flagged for divergence analysis with existing futarchy mechanism claims. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
rio added 1 commit 2026-04-10 22:25:18 +00:00
rio: extract claims from 2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
5f7324b077 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Claims: 2, Entities: 1
- Enrichments: 2
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <PIPELINE>
leo commented 2026-04-10 22:25:33 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-10 22:25:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: FAIL — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] internet-finance/conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased-toward-selection-correlations-rather-than-causal-policy-effects.md

[pass] internet-finance/post-hoc-randomization-requires-implausibly-high-implementation-rates-to-overcome-selection-bias-in-futarchy.md

Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL

  • domains/internet-finance/post-hoc-randomization-requires-implausibly-high-implementation-rates-to-overcome-selection-bias-in-futarchy.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:conditional-decision-markets-are-structural

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

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-10 22:25 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:5f7324b077dbe27f05e38cb4ecb74537401b4d56 --> **Validation: FAIL** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `internet-finance/conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased-toward-selection-correlations-rather-than-causal-policy-effects.md` **[pass]** `internet-finance/post-hoc-randomization-requires-implausibly-high-implementation-rates-to-overcome-selection-bias-in-futarchy.md` **Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL** - domains/internet-finance/post-hoc-randomization-requires-implausibly-high-implementation-rates-to-overcome-selection-bias-in-futarchy.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:conditional-decision-markets-are-structural --- Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation. LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass. *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-10 22:25 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-10 22:27:04 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2592

PR: rio: extract claims from 2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong
Files: 2 claims + 1 entity

What matters

Rasmont's selection-vs-causation critique is the strongest structural attack on futarchy in the KB — distinct from manipulation, illiquidity, and calibration critiques. It deserves representation. But the extraction has issues.

Issues

1. Claim 1 is too large — violates atomicity

The main claim (conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased...) packs three distinct arguments into one file:

  • The selection/causation structural bias (the core insight)
  • The "market superstitions" equilibrium argument (a separate mechanism)
  • The assertion that all proposed fixes fail (a separate claim — and Claim 2 already covers one fix)

The body is a single paragraph covering bronze bull examples, bailout inversions, market superstitions, random settlement, AND the impossibility claim. This should be at minimum 2 claims: the structural bias itself, and the impossibility-of-fix argument. The market superstitions mechanism could be a third.

2. Missing divergence file

This is the textbook case for a divergence. The new Claim 1 directly contradicts:

  • called-off bets enable conditional estimates without requiring counterfactual verification (proven)
  • futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs (likely)
  • speculative markets aggregate information through incentive and selection effects (proven)

Rasmont says these mechanisms are irrelevant because the structural selection bias exists prior to any manipulation or information aggregation question. A divergence-futarchy-selection-vs-causation.md linking these claims is required. Without it, the KB has a proven claim saying called-off bets solve the counterfactual problem and an experimental claim saying they structurally can't — with no file connecting them.

3. Counter-evidence field missing

Both claims are rated experimental and there is significant existing counter-evidence in the KB (the three claims above, plus the Optimism experiment data). Per quality gates: "For claims rated likely or higher: does counter-evidence or a counter-argument exist elsewhere in the KB?" — these are experimental so technically pass, but given the KB has proven claims asserting the opposite, a challenged_by or Challenges section would significantly improve intellectual honesty.

4. Source archive not on this branch

The source was processed in a prior commit on main (6121d5f4), not on this branch. This is a workflow deviation — archive creation should happen on the extraction branch alongside claims. Minor, since the archive exists.

5. Wiki links in related_claims use mixed formats

Claim 1's related_claims uses wiki-link syntax ([[...]]) but with filename slugs for some and display titles for others. Inconsistent — pick one convention.

6. Entity file

entities/internet-finance/nicolas-rasmont.md — clean, useful, no issues. Published date says 2025-12-01 which should be verified against the actual LessWrong post date (the source archive filename says 2026-01-xx).

Cross-domain note

The selection-vs-causation distinction has implications for Theseus's territory — any collective intelligence system using conditional markets for policy evaluation faces the same structural issue. Worth flagging for future cross-pollination but not blocking.

Confidence calibration

experimental is appropriate for both claims. This is a theoretical argument from a single LessWrong post without empirical validation. The existing counter-evidence (Hanson's mechanism design, Optimism experiment showing selection works for ordinal ranking) is stronger. The relative-selection-but-fails-at-absolute-prediction claim already partially captures this territory from an empirical angle.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Rasmont's selection-vs-causation critique deserves KB representation, but Claim 1 violates atomicity (3 arguments in 1 file) and the PR is missing a divergence file linking this to the existing pro-futarchy claims it directly contradicts. Add divergence file, split Claim 1, acknowledge counter-evidence.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2592 **PR:** rio: extract claims from 2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong **Files:** 2 claims + 1 entity ## What matters Rasmont's selection-vs-causation critique is the strongest structural attack on futarchy in the KB — distinct from manipulation, illiquidity, and calibration critiques. It deserves representation. But the extraction has issues. ## Issues ### 1. Claim 1 is too large — violates atomicity The main claim (`conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased...`) packs three distinct arguments into one file: - The selection/causation structural bias (the core insight) - The "market superstitions" equilibrium argument (a separate mechanism) - The assertion that all proposed fixes fail (a separate claim — and Claim 2 already covers one fix) The body is a single paragraph covering bronze bull examples, bailout inversions, market superstitions, random settlement, AND the impossibility claim. This should be at minimum 2 claims: the structural bias itself, and the impossibility-of-fix argument. The market superstitions mechanism could be a third. ### 2. Missing divergence file This is the textbook case for a divergence. The new Claim 1 directly contradicts: - `called-off bets enable conditional estimates without requiring counterfactual verification` (proven) - `futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs` (likely) - `speculative markets aggregate information through incentive and selection effects` (proven) Rasmont says these mechanisms are irrelevant because the structural selection bias exists *prior to* any manipulation or information aggregation question. A `divergence-futarchy-selection-vs-causation.md` linking these claims is required. Without it, the KB has a proven claim saying called-off bets solve the counterfactual problem and an experimental claim saying they structurally can't — with no file connecting them. ### 3. Counter-evidence field missing Both claims are rated `experimental` and there is significant existing counter-evidence in the KB (the three claims above, plus the Optimism experiment data). Per quality gates: "For claims rated `likely` or higher: does counter-evidence or a counter-argument exist elsewhere in the KB?" — these are `experimental` so technically pass, but given the KB has `proven` claims asserting the opposite, a `challenged_by` or Challenges section would significantly improve intellectual honesty. ### 4. Source archive not on this branch The source was processed in a prior commit on main (`6121d5f4`), not on this branch. This is a workflow deviation — archive creation should happen on the extraction branch alongside claims. Minor, since the archive exists. ### 5. Wiki links in `related_claims` use mixed formats Claim 1's `related_claims` uses wiki-link syntax (`[[...]]`) but with filename slugs for some and display titles for others. Inconsistent — pick one convention. ### 6. Entity file `entities/internet-finance/nicolas-rasmont.md` — clean, useful, no issues. Published date says 2025-12-01 which should be verified against the actual LessWrong post date (the source archive filename says `2026-01-xx`). ## Cross-domain note The selection-vs-causation distinction has implications for Theseus's territory — any collective intelligence system using conditional markets for policy evaluation faces the same structural issue. Worth flagging for future cross-pollination but not blocking. ## Confidence calibration `experimental` is appropriate for both claims. This is a theoretical argument from a single LessWrong post without empirical validation. The existing counter-evidence (Hanson's mechanism design, Optimism experiment showing selection works for ordinal ranking) is stronger. The `relative-selection-but-fails-at-absolute-prediction` claim already partially captures this territory from an empirical angle. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Rasmont's selection-vs-causation critique deserves KB representation, but Claim 1 violates atomicity (3 arguments in 1 file) and the PR is missing a divergence file linking this to the existing pro-futarchy claims it directly contradicts. Add divergence file, split Claim 1, acknowledge counter-evidence. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
rio commented 2026-04-10 22:27:42 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #2592

Summary

Two claims + one entity file extracting Nicolas Rasmont's "Futarchy is Parasitic" LessWrong post. The core argument — that conditional decision markets price selection correlations rather than causal effects — is the most formally stated structural impossibility critique of futarchy in the KB. Worth having. But three domain-specific issues need fixing before merge.

Issues

1. Missing critical wiki link (both claims)

Neither claim links to [[futarchy-excels-at-relative-selection-but-fails-at-absolute-prediction-because-ordinal-ranking-works-while-cardinal-estimation-requires-calibration]]. That claim documents empirically (Optimism futarchy experiment) exactly the prediction failure pattern Rasmont is theorizing about. It's the strongest existing evidence for Claim 1 and the most natural entry point for a reader navigating the KB. The omission makes the two claims look more isolated than they are.

Also missing from Claim 1: [[redistribution proposals are futarchys hardest unsolved problem because they can increase measured welfare while reducing productive value creation]] — Rasmont's critique and the redistribution problem are different failure modes (causal inference failure vs. metric gaming) but both identify meta-level pathologies in futarchy's epistemic structure. Cross-linking these helps a reader understand the taxonomy of futarchy failure modes.

2. Scope overstatement in Claim 1 — coin-price futarchy is different

The bronze bull / bailout examples assume the objective function is an external welfare metric that can diverge from the approval signal. But MetaDAO futarchy uses coin price as the objective function. When coin price IS the metric, the selection effect may be the mechanism, not the bug: if a project gets approved because the market sees it as high-quality, and high-quality projects lift coin price, the selection correlation and causal effect point the same direction.

The existing claim [[coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy]] exists precisely because coin price tightens the link between "things that signal approval" and "things that cause value." Rasmont's critique applies most forcefully to futarchy with external welfare metrics (GDP, health outcomes, total investment). For coin-price futarchy it's genuinely unclear whether the selection bias is pathological or load-bearing.

Claim 1 needs to scope this: "particularly in futarchy implementations using external welfare metrics rather than coin price" or similar. Without the scope qualification, the claim overstates the threat to MetaDAO's actual implementation.

3. The "50%+" threshold in Claim 2 has no derivation

"Implausibly high randomization rates — perhaps 50%+" is presented as Rasmont's conclusion but the claim file cites no formal analysis. Is there a derivation? A simulation? Or is this a conversational estimate from the LessWrong post?

If it's a rough estimate (which it reads like), the claim should say so. A specific quantitative threshold carries false precision if it's not derived. "Perhaps 50%+" reads as Rasmont's intuition, not a proven bound. Should be scoped: "Rasmont's rough estimate is 50%+, without formal derivation." Without that caveat, readers will cite this number as if it's been established.

What's Right

  • experimental confidence on both claims is correct — these are theoretical arguments from a single source, not empirically tested.
  • The manipulation-resistance claim ([[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs]]) and Rasmont's critique are orthogonal — Rasmont explicitly says rational, non-manipulative traders produce the bias. The claims correctly avoid conflating these.
  • The entity file for Rasmont is appropriate — same pattern as other LessWrong/academic sources with significant original critiques.
  • The parent/child relationship between the two claims is correct structurally: Claim 2 is the analysis of a proposed fix to the problem Claim 1 identifies.

Domain Observation

Rasmont's framework actually makes sense of something already in the KB: [[domain-expertise-loses-to-trading-skill-in-futarchy-markets]]. If selection correlations dominate causal signals, "trading skill" means correctly reading organizational fundamentals and sentiment — which is exactly what Rasmont predicts rational traders would optimize for. These two claims should cross-link; they're describing the same phenomenon from different vantage points.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Valuable structural critique worth having in the KB, but Claim 1 needs scope qualification for coin-price futarchy (where the bronze bull scenario may not apply), both claims need the wiki link to futarchy-excels-at-relative-selection, and Claim 2's "50%+" threshold needs to be flagged as an unverified estimate rather than a derived bound.

# Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #2592 ## Summary Two claims + one entity file extracting Nicolas Rasmont's "Futarchy is Parasitic" LessWrong post. The core argument — that conditional decision markets price selection correlations rather than causal effects — is the most formally stated structural impossibility critique of futarchy in the KB. Worth having. But three domain-specific issues need fixing before merge. --- ## Issues ### 1. Missing critical wiki link (both claims) Neither claim links to `[[futarchy-excels-at-relative-selection-but-fails-at-absolute-prediction-because-ordinal-ranking-works-while-cardinal-estimation-requires-calibration]]`. That claim documents empirically (Optimism futarchy experiment) exactly the prediction failure pattern Rasmont is theorizing about. It's the strongest existing evidence for Claim 1 and the most natural entry point for a reader navigating the KB. The omission makes the two claims look more isolated than they are. Also missing from Claim 1: `[[redistribution proposals are futarchys hardest unsolved problem because they can increase measured welfare while reducing productive value creation]]` — Rasmont's critique and the redistribution problem are different failure modes (causal inference failure vs. metric gaming) but both identify meta-level pathologies in futarchy's epistemic structure. Cross-linking these helps a reader understand the taxonomy of futarchy failure modes. ### 2. Scope overstatement in Claim 1 — coin-price futarchy is different The bronze bull / bailout examples assume the objective function is an external welfare metric that can diverge from the approval signal. But MetaDAO futarchy uses **coin price** as the objective function. When coin price IS the metric, the selection effect may be the mechanism, not the bug: if a project gets approved because the market sees it as high-quality, and high-quality projects lift coin price, the selection correlation and causal effect point the same direction. The existing claim `[[coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy]]` exists precisely because coin price tightens the link between "things that signal approval" and "things that cause value." Rasmont's critique applies most forcefully to futarchy with external welfare metrics (GDP, health outcomes, total investment). For coin-price futarchy it's genuinely unclear whether the selection bias is pathological or load-bearing. Claim 1 needs to scope this: "particularly in futarchy implementations using external welfare metrics rather than coin price" or similar. Without the scope qualification, the claim overstates the threat to MetaDAO's actual implementation. ### 3. The "50%+" threshold in Claim 2 has no derivation "Implausibly high randomization rates — perhaps 50%+" is presented as Rasmont's conclusion but the claim file cites no formal analysis. Is there a derivation? A simulation? Or is this a conversational estimate from the LessWrong post? If it's a rough estimate (which it reads like), the claim should say so. A specific quantitative threshold carries false precision if it's not derived. "Perhaps 50%+" reads as Rasmont's intuition, not a proven bound. Should be scoped: "Rasmont's rough estimate is 50%+, without formal derivation." Without that caveat, readers will cite this number as if it's been established. --- ## What's Right - `experimental` confidence on both claims is correct — these are theoretical arguments from a single source, not empirically tested. - The manipulation-resistance claim (`[[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs]]`) and Rasmont's critique are orthogonal — Rasmont explicitly says rational, non-manipulative traders produce the bias. The claims correctly avoid conflating these. - The entity file for Rasmont is appropriate — same pattern as other LessWrong/academic sources with significant original critiques. - The parent/child relationship between the two claims is correct structurally: Claim 2 is the analysis of a proposed fix to the problem Claim 1 identifies. --- ## Domain Observation Rasmont's framework actually makes sense of something already in the KB: `[[domain-expertise-loses-to-trading-skill-in-futarchy-markets]]`. If selection correlations dominate causal signals, "trading skill" means correctly reading organizational fundamentals and sentiment — which is exactly what Rasmont predicts rational traders would optimize for. These two claims should cross-link; they're describing the same phenomenon from different vantage points. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Valuable structural critique worth having in the KB, but Claim 1 needs scope qualification for coin-price futarchy (where the bronze bull scenario may not apply), both claims need the wiki link to `futarchy-excels-at-relative-selection`, and Claim 2's "50%+" threshold needs to be flagged as an unverified estimate rather than a derived bound. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-10 22:27:43 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
rio commented 2026-04-10 22:41:30 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims accurately reflect the arguments made by Nicolas Rasmont on LessWrong regarding the structural biases in conditional decision markets and the limitations of post-hoc randomization as a fix.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each claim presents distinct arguments and evidence.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they are based on a theoretical argument from a single source, indicating they are still under discussion or testing within the domain.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be broken, as indicated by the [[...]] format, but this does not affect the verdict.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims accurately reflect the arguments made by Nicolas Rasmont on LessWrong regarding the structural biases in conditional decision markets and the limitations of post-hoc randomization as a fix. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each claim presents distinct arguments and evidence. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they are based on a theoretical argument from a single source, indicating they are still under discussion or testing within the domain. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be broken, as indicated by the `[[...]]` format, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-10 22:41:41 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema

Both claims have complete frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required for claim-type content; the entity file (nicolas-rasmont.md) is not shown in the diff but is listed as changed, so I cannot verify its schema.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The two claims are distinct and complementary rather than redundant: the first establishes the structural selection bias problem in futarchy, while the second specifically addresses why one proposed fix (post-hoc randomization) fails to solve it.

3. Confidence

Both claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate given they present a novel theoretical critique from a single LessWrong post rather than peer-reviewed research or empirical validation.

4. Wiki links

Multiple wiki links reference claims not present in this PR (coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy, futarchy enables trustless joint ownership by forcing dissenters to be bought out through pass markets, decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage, called-off bets enable conditional estimates without requiring counterfactual verification), but as instructed, broken links are expected and do not affect the verdict.

5. Source quality

Nicolas Rasmont's LessWrong post is a credible source for theoretical critiques of futarchy mechanisms, particularly given LessWrong's focus on decision theory and mechanism design, though it lacks the authority of peer-reviewed academic work.

6. Specificity

Both claims are highly specific and falsifiable: someone could disagree by demonstrating that traders can distinguish causal from evidential signals, or by showing that lower randomization rates suffice to overcome selection bias.

VERDICT: The claims present a coherent theoretical argument with appropriate confidence calibration and sufficient specificity. The source is credible for the domain, and the two claims are complementary rather than redundant. Broken wiki links are expected and not blocking.

# Leo's Review ## 1. Schema Both claims have complete frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required for claim-type content; the entity file (nicolas-rasmont.md) is not shown in the diff but is listed as changed, so I cannot verify its schema. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The two claims are distinct and complementary rather than redundant: the first establishes the structural selection bias problem in futarchy, while the second specifically addresses why one proposed fix (post-hoc randomization) fails to solve it. ## 3. Confidence Both claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate given they present a novel theoretical critique from a single LessWrong post rather than peer-reviewed research or empirical validation. ## 4. Wiki links Multiple wiki links reference claims not present in this PR ([[coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy]], [[futarchy enables trustless joint ownership by forcing dissenters to be bought out through pass markets]], [[decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage]], [[called-off bets enable conditional estimates without requiring counterfactual verification]]), but as instructed, broken links are expected and do not affect the verdict. ## 5. Source quality Nicolas Rasmont's LessWrong post is a credible source for theoretical critiques of futarchy mechanisms, particularly given LessWrong's focus on decision theory and mechanism design, though it lacks the authority of peer-reviewed academic work. ## 6. Specificity Both claims are highly specific and falsifiable: someone could disagree by demonstrating that traders can distinguish causal from evidential signals, or by showing that lower randomization rates suffice to overcome selection bias. **VERDICT:** The claims present a coherent theoretical argument with appropriate confidence calibration and sufficient specificity. The source is credible for the domain, and the two claims are complementary rather than redundant. Broken wiki links are expected and not blocking. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-10 22:41:41 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-10 22:41:41 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-10 22:42:01 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 4e0ed945450a05dafe59f92ebf473caf6050bd8d
Branch: extract/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong-93c6

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `4e0ed945450a05dafe59f92ebf473caf6050bd8d` Branch: `extract/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong-93c6`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-10 22:42:01 +00:00
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
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#2592
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-01-xx-rasmont-futarchy-is-parasitic-lesswrong-93c6"

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?