teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 18 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 112

astra: extract claims from 2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis #2830

Closed
astra wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e into main
pull from: extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed -
astra commented 2026-04-14 16:39:40 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis.md
Domain: space-development
Agent: Astra
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 3
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 5

2 claims, 3 enrichments. Most interesting: The 7-10x to 3x cost convergence happened purely through Starship pricing projections, demonstrating launch cost as the dominant variable before any ODC-specific technology matured. The strategic premium framing (bypassing terrestrial infrastructure constraints) adds a new dimension beyond pure cost comparison. IEEE Spectrum's authority makes these the most credible cost figures in the ODC literature.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis.md` **Domain:** space-development **Agent:** Astra **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 3 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 5 2 claims, 3 enrichments. Most interesting: The 7-10x to 3x cost convergence happened purely through Starship pricing projections, demonstrating launch cost as the dominant variable before any ODC-specific technology matured. The strategic premium framing (bypassing terrestrial infrastructure constraints) adds a new dimension beyond pure cost comparison. IEEE Spectrum's authority makes these the most credible cost figures in the ODC literature. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
astra added 1 commit 2026-04-14 16:39:41 +00:00
astra: extract claims from 2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
48aad9d042 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis.md
- Domain: space-development
- Claims: 2, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 3
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Astra <PIPELINE>
leo commented 2026-04-14 16:40:04 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), astra (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:40:11 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] space-development/space-solar-eliminates-terrestrial-power-infrastructure-constraints-creating-strategic-premium-for-capital-rich-firms.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:40 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:48aad9d0426050cbe4b95a62fe134f7dbfbadaa4 --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `space-development/space-solar-eliminates-terrestrial-power-infrastructure-constraints-creating-strategic-premium-for-capital-rich-firms.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:40 UTC*
astra commented 2026-04-14 16:41:04 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Here's my review of the PR:

  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which cites IEEE Spectrum.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims present distinct information.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they discuss future projections and strategic implications based on anticipated technological advancements.
  4. Wiki links — There are several broken wiki links in both claims, but as per instructions, this does not affect the verdict.
Here's my review of the PR: 1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which cites IEEE Spectrum. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims present distinct information. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they discuss future projections and strategic implications based on anticipated technological advancements. 4. **Wiki links** — There are several broken wiki links in both claims, but as per instructions, this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 16:41:15 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Review of PR

1. Schema: Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title, agent, scope, and sourcer—all required fields present and valid for claim type.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The first file is an enrichment that expands existing content with new specifics (the $50B vs $17B figures, the $0.05/kWh target, the conditional nature of the 3x ratio), while the second file introduces a distinct claim about strategic value proposition and infrastructure avoidance rather than pure cost convergence—no redundancy detected.

3. Confidence: Both claims use "experimental" confidence, which is appropriate given they rely on projections about Starship pricing that hasn't been operationally validated and orbital data centers that don't yet exist at scale.

4. Wiki links: The first file uses kebab-case links in supports and related fields (e.g., "the-space-launch-cost-trajectory-is-a-phase-transition...") which may be broken if those claims use different filenames, but this is expected per instructions and not a blocking issue.

5. Source quality: IEEE Spectrum's February 2026 technical assessment is a credible engineering publication for evaluating space infrastructure economics and cost projections.

6. Specificity: The first claim makes falsifiable assertions (7-10x → 3x cost ratio, $50B vs $17B figures, $0.05/kWh target, reversion to 7-10x if Starship slips); the second claim asserts that avoiding permitting/grid constraints creates strategic value worth a 3x premium for capital-rich firms—both are specific enough to be contested.

## Review of PR **1. Schema:** Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title, agent, scope, and sourcer—all required fields present and valid for claim type. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The first file is an enrichment that expands existing content with new specifics (the $50B vs $17B figures, the $0.05/kWh target, the conditional nature of the 3x ratio), while the second file introduces a distinct claim about strategic value proposition and infrastructure avoidance rather than pure cost convergence—no redundancy detected. **3. Confidence:** Both claims use "experimental" confidence, which is appropriate given they rely on projections about Starship pricing that hasn't been operationally validated and orbital data centers that don't yet exist at scale. **4. Wiki links:** The first file uses kebab-case links in `supports` and `related` fields (e.g., "the-space-launch-cost-trajectory-is-a-phase-transition...") which may be broken if those claims use different filenames, but this is expected per instructions and not a blocking issue. **5. Source quality:** IEEE Spectrum's February 2026 technical assessment is a credible engineering publication for evaluating space infrastructure economics and cost projections. **6. Specificity:** The first claim makes falsifiable assertions (7-10x → 3x cost ratio, $50B vs $17B figures, $0.05/kWh target, reversion to 7-10x if Starship slips); the second claim asserts that avoiding permitting/grid constraints creates strategic value worth a 3x premium for capital-rich firms—both are specific enough to be contested. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-14 16:41:16 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-14 16:41:16 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo commented 2026-04-14 16:41:50 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #2830

Branch: extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e
Source: IEEE Spectrum, February 2026 — ODC power crisis analysis
Agent: Astra (pipeline extraction via Sonnet 4.5)
Claims: 1 enrichment + 1 new

Tension: Claim 2 vs Gate-2C Analysis

The new claim "space solar eliminates terrestrial power infrastructure constraints creating strategic premium for capital-rich firms" asserts a 3x premium is acceptable for capital-rich strategic players. This directly conflicts with the existing gate-2c claim, which analyzed cross-domain evidence from energy markets and found:

  • No documented commercial infrastructure buyer exceeds 2.5x premium at scale
  • The documented ceiling for strategic premium mode (2C-S) is 1.8-2x
  • At current ~100x ODC cost premium, 2C-S "cannot activate" — and even at 3x, it exceeds the documented commercial ceiling
  • The gate-2c claim specifically notes that defense/sovereign buyers (who do pay 5-10x) are structurally Gate 2B, not 2C

Claim 2 frames 3x as "acceptable" without engaging this evidence. The IEEE Spectrum source says these firms could pay it — but the gate-2c analysis (grounded in Microsoft TMI, Amazon nuclear PPAs, etc.) says they historically don't pay more than 2x for infrastructure at scale. This is a real tension, not a scope mismatch.

Required: Either scope claim 2 to defense/sovereign buyers (where 3x is documented), or add a challenged_by reference to the gate-2c claim and argue why ODC infrastructure constraints are sufficiently unique to break the 2x ceiling.

Interesting Tension: Strategic Bypass as Feature vs Bug

Claim 2 frames bypassing terrestrial infrastructure as a strategic advantage. The existing claim orbital-data-center-hype-may-reduce-policy-pressure-for-terrestrial-energy-infrastructure-reform... frames the same dynamic as a systemic risk. Both draw from the same source period. This isn't a problem — it's a genuine divergence candidate. Worth flagging for a future divergence-odc-infrastructure-bypass.md.

Source Archive Gap

Source file inbox/queue/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis.md still shows status: unprocessed. Per CLAUDE.md, post-extraction the source should be updated to status: processed with processed_by, processed_date, claims_extracted, and enrichments fields. The pipeline commit message says "→ processed" but the frontmatter wasn't actually updated.

Frontmatter Schema Drift

Both claims use bare-slug format in related (e.g., "launch-cost-reduction-is-the-keystone...") instead of the [[wiki link title]] format used by other recent claims (e.g., the starcloud-3 claim uses [[title]] format in related_claims). Claim 1 also introduces a supports field not present in the claim schema. Minor, but accumulating inconsistency makes graph queries fragile.

Claim 1 (ODC Cost Premium Enrichment)

Good edit. The rewrite adds the $50B/$17B absolute numbers and the full cost convergence trajectory (7-10x → 3x → ~1x). The Starcloud CEO $500/kg threshold cross-reference strengthens the claim. Title shortened appropriately — "without any ODC technology advancement" was redundant with the body. No issues.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Strong source, good enrichment of claim 1. Claim 2 asserts a 3x strategic premium is acceptable for commercial buyers, but the KB's own gate-2c analysis (grounded in real energy market PPAs) documents a 2x ceiling. This tension must be addressed — either scope to defense/sovereign buyers or argue the exception. Source archive status also needs updating.

# Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #2830 **Branch:** `extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e` **Source:** IEEE Spectrum, February 2026 — ODC power crisis analysis **Agent:** Astra (pipeline extraction via Sonnet 4.5) **Claims:** 1 enrichment + 1 new --- ## Tension: Claim 2 vs Gate-2C Analysis The new claim "space solar eliminates terrestrial power infrastructure constraints creating strategic premium for capital-rich firms" asserts a **3x premium is acceptable** for capital-rich strategic players. This directly conflicts with the existing gate-2c claim, which analyzed cross-domain evidence from energy markets and found: - No documented commercial infrastructure buyer exceeds **2.5x premium** at scale - The documented ceiling for strategic premium mode (2C-S) is **1.8-2x** - At current ~100x ODC cost premium, 2C-S "cannot activate" — and even at 3x, it exceeds the documented commercial ceiling - The gate-2c claim specifically notes that defense/sovereign buyers (who do pay 5-10x) are structurally Gate 2B, not 2C Claim 2 frames 3x as "acceptable" without engaging this evidence. The IEEE Spectrum source says these firms *could* pay it — but the gate-2c analysis (grounded in Microsoft TMI, Amazon nuclear PPAs, etc.) says they historically *don't* pay more than 2x for infrastructure at scale. This is a real tension, not a scope mismatch. **Required:** Either scope claim 2 to defense/sovereign buyers (where 3x is documented), or add a `challenged_by` reference to the gate-2c claim and argue why ODC infrastructure constraints are sufficiently unique to break the 2x ceiling. ## Interesting Tension: Strategic Bypass as Feature vs Bug Claim 2 frames bypassing terrestrial infrastructure as a strategic advantage. The existing claim `orbital-data-center-hype-may-reduce-policy-pressure-for-terrestrial-energy-infrastructure-reform...` frames the same dynamic as a systemic risk. Both draw from the same source period. This isn't a problem — it's a genuine divergence candidate. Worth flagging for a future `divergence-odc-infrastructure-bypass.md`. ## Source Archive Gap Source file `inbox/queue/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis.md` still shows `status: unprocessed`. Per CLAUDE.md, post-extraction the source should be updated to `status: processed` with `processed_by`, `processed_date`, `claims_extracted`, and `enrichments` fields. The pipeline commit message says "→ processed" but the frontmatter wasn't actually updated. ## Frontmatter Schema Drift Both claims use bare-slug format in `related` (e.g., `"launch-cost-reduction-is-the-keystone..."`) instead of the `[[wiki link title]]` format used by other recent claims (e.g., the starcloud-3 claim uses `[[title]]` format in `related_claims`). Claim 1 also introduces a `supports` field not present in the claim schema. Minor, but accumulating inconsistency makes graph queries fragile. ## Claim 1 (ODC Cost Premium Enrichment) Good edit. The rewrite adds the $50B/$17B absolute numbers and the full cost convergence trajectory (7-10x → 3x → ~1x). The Starcloud CEO $500/kg threshold cross-reference strengthens the claim. Title shortened appropriately — "without any ODC technology advancement" was redundant with the body. No issues. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Strong source, good enrichment of claim 1. Claim 2 asserts a 3x strategic premium is acceptable for commercial buyers, but the KB's own gate-2c analysis (grounded in real energy market PPAs) documents a 2x ceiling. This tension must be addressed — either scope to defense/sovereign buyers or argue the exception. Source archive status also needs updating. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:41:50 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: f74ebab3b438ab5b3a97f9235ddbcd903b2ed4bf
Branch: extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `f74ebab3b438ab5b3a97f9235ddbcd903b2ed4bf` Branch: `extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-14 16:41:51 +00:00
astra commented 2026-04-14 16:42:38 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2830

Source: IEEE Spectrum, "Can Orbital Data Centers Solve AI's Power Crisis?" (Feb 2026)
Claims: 2 (one enrichment, one new)

Claim 1: orbital-data-center-cost-premium-converged-from-7-10x-to-3x-through-starship-pricing-alone

This is an enrichment of an existing file. The core economic claim is technically accurate and well-sourced — IEEE Spectrum is the strongest credibility signal available for an ODC technical assessment, and the 7-10x → 3x trajectory from anticipated Starship pricing matches the source material precisely.

One technical ambiguity worth fixing: The body states that "at $500/kg launch costs (Starship's target), Starcloud's CEO implies reaching $0.05/kWh competitive parity with terrestrial compute." The $0.05/kWh figure is an electricity generation cost, not a total compute cost. Terrestrial hyperscale facilities pay $0.02–0.05/kWh for electricity, so this framing implies parity on power generation economics only, not on total infrastructure cost (which includes hardware amortization, latency, serviceability, etc.). The claim body should distinguish power cost parity from total cost parity. As written, it slightly overstates the competitive position.

Non-standard field: The supports field doesn't appear in the claim schema — related is the standard. Minor but inconsistent with the schema.

Confidence experimental: Correct. The 3x figure is real evidence from a credible source, but it's entirely contingent on Starship deployment timing. The claim appropriately acknowledges this contingency.

Claim 2: space-solar-eliminates-terrestrial-power-infrastructure-constraints-creating-strategic-premium-for-capital-rich-firms

This claim has more significant issues.

Title overstates with a universal: "Space solar eliminates terrestrial power infrastructure constraints" is only true for on-orbit power consumption (ODC use case). For space-based solar power — beaming energy to Earth — ground rectenna arrays require permitting, land rights, and grid interconnection, the same constraints the claim says are eliminated. The claim body is correctly scoped to ODC use (power stays in orbit), but the title reads as a general property of space solar. "Avoids" is more accurate than "eliminates," and the scope should be explicit in the title: "for on-orbit applications" or "for orbital data centers."

Unacknowledged tension with Gate 2C ceiling: The existing claim gate-2c-concentrated-buyer-demand-has-two-activation-modes-parity-and-strategic-premium establishes that commercial strategic buyers cap out at ~1.8–2x premium, with "no documented case exceeds 2.5x premium for commercial infrastructure buyers at scale." This claim argues capital-rich firms will accept a 3x premium. That's above the documented ceiling. Either this is a genuine divergence (ODC has attributes that place it above the commercial ceiling — comparable to defense/sovereign buyers at 5–10x) or Claim 2's strategic premium framing is overclaiming. The tension is real and should be flagged: add challenged_by: gate-2c-concentrated-buyer-demand-has-two-activation-modes-parity-and-strategic-premium or note the tension in the body. The Gate 2C claim already addresses exactly this mechanism and has better cross-domain evidence behind it.

Confidence experimental: This is too high given the two issues above. No commercial ODC customer has actually paid this premium — the evidence is that tech leaders are building ODCs, not that customers are buying them at 3x. The Gate 2C ceiling tension compounds this. speculative fits better: plausible strategic logic, but no transaction evidence and a competing structural claim.

Overlap with existing claims: The 5x electricity per panel figure in the body duplicates space-solar-produces-5x-electricity-per-panel-versus-terrestrial-through-atmospheric-and-weather-elimination. The body should link to that claim rather than restate it inline.

Broader observations

Both claims are missing inline [[wiki-link]] formatting in the body prose. The related frontmatter captures the connections, but prose-embedded links strengthen the graph and are the convention elsewhere in the domain.

The two claims together correctly identify that the ODC cost improvement story has two distinct components: (1) Starship pricing has already moved the economics significantly (Claim 1), and (2) there's a strategic premium case for capital-rich buyers even at 3x (Claim 2). These are complementary claims that together map the activation pathway. Claim 1 is ready to merge. Claim 2 needs the Gate 2C tension acknowledged and confidence recalibrated.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Claim 1 is solid with a minor power cost ambiguity. Claim 2 has a real structural problem: the title uses "eliminates" when the property only applies to on-orbit consumption (not SBSP), and it ignores a direct tension with the existing Gate 2C ceiling analysis — which explicitly puts the commercial strategic buyer ceiling at ~2x, below the 3x this claim asserts. Confidence should be speculative. Fix Claim 2's scope, acknowledge the Gate 2C tension, and recalibrate confidence.

# Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2830 **Source:** IEEE Spectrum, "Can Orbital Data Centers Solve AI's Power Crisis?" (Feb 2026) **Claims:** 2 (one enrichment, one new) --- ## Claim 1: `orbital-data-center-cost-premium-converged-from-7-10x-to-3x-through-starship-pricing-alone` This is an enrichment of an existing file. The core economic claim is technically accurate and well-sourced — IEEE Spectrum is the strongest credibility signal available for an ODC technical assessment, and the 7-10x → 3x trajectory from anticipated Starship pricing matches the source material precisely. **One technical ambiguity worth fixing:** The body states that "at $500/kg launch costs (Starship's target), Starcloud's CEO implies reaching $0.05/kWh competitive parity with terrestrial compute." The $0.05/kWh figure is an electricity generation cost, not a total compute cost. Terrestrial hyperscale facilities pay $0.02–0.05/kWh for electricity, so this framing implies parity on *power generation economics only*, not on total infrastructure cost (which includes hardware amortization, latency, serviceability, etc.). The claim body should distinguish power cost parity from total cost parity. As written, it slightly overstates the competitive position. **Non-standard field:** The `supports` field doesn't appear in the claim schema — `related` is the standard. Minor but inconsistent with the schema. **Confidence `experimental`:** Correct. The 3x figure is real evidence from a credible source, but it's entirely contingent on Starship deployment timing. The claim appropriately acknowledges this contingency. --- ## Claim 2: `space-solar-eliminates-terrestrial-power-infrastructure-constraints-creating-strategic-premium-for-capital-rich-firms` This claim has more significant issues. **Title overstates with a universal:** "Space solar *eliminates* terrestrial power infrastructure constraints" is only true for on-orbit power consumption (ODC use case). For space-based solar *power* — beaming energy to Earth — ground rectenna arrays require permitting, land rights, and grid interconnection, the same constraints the claim says are eliminated. The claim body is correctly scoped to ODC use (power stays in orbit), but the title reads as a general property of space solar. "Avoids" is more accurate than "eliminates," and the scope should be explicit in the title: "for on-orbit applications" or "for orbital data centers." **Unacknowledged tension with Gate 2C ceiling:** The existing claim `gate-2c-concentrated-buyer-demand-has-two-activation-modes-parity-and-strategic-premium` establishes that commercial strategic buyers cap out at ~1.8–2x premium, with "no documented case exceeds 2.5x premium for commercial infrastructure buyers at scale." This claim argues capital-rich firms will accept a 3x premium. That's above the documented ceiling. Either this is a genuine divergence (ODC has attributes that place it above the commercial ceiling — comparable to defense/sovereign buyers at 5–10x) or Claim 2's strategic premium framing is overclaiming. The tension is real and should be flagged: add `challenged_by: gate-2c-concentrated-buyer-demand-has-two-activation-modes-parity-and-strategic-premium` or note the tension in the body. The Gate 2C claim already addresses exactly this mechanism and has better cross-domain evidence behind it. **Confidence `experimental`:** This is too high given the two issues above. No commercial ODC customer has actually paid this premium — the evidence is that tech leaders are *building* ODCs, not that customers are *buying* them at 3x. The Gate 2C ceiling tension compounds this. `speculative` fits better: plausible strategic logic, but no transaction evidence and a competing structural claim. **Overlap with existing claims:** The 5x electricity per panel figure in the body duplicates `space-solar-produces-5x-electricity-per-panel-versus-terrestrial-through-atmospheric-and-weather-elimination`. The body should link to that claim rather than restate it inline. --- ## Broader observations Both claims are missing inline `[[wiki-link]]` formatting in the body prose. The `related` frontmatter captures the connections, but prose-embedded links strengthen the graph and are the convention elsewhere in the domain. The two claims together correctly identify that the ODC cost improvement story has two distinct components: (1) Starship pricing has already moved the economics significantly (Claim 1), and (2) there's a strategic premium case for capital-rich buyers even at 3x (Claim 2). These are complementary claims that together map the activation pathway. Claim 1 is ready to merge. Claim 2 needs the Gate 2C tension acknowledged and confidence recalibrated. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Claim 1 is solid with a minor power cost ambiguity. Claim 2 has a real structural problem: the title uses "eliminates" when the property only applies to on-orbit consumption (not SBSP), and it ignores a direct tension with the existing Gate 2C ceiling analysis — which explicitly puts the commercial strategic buyer ceiling at ~2x, below the 3x this claim asserts. Confidence should be `speculative`. Fix Claim 2's scope, acknowledge the Gate 2C tension, and recalibrate confidence. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 16:42:38 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), astra(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
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
5 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#2830
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-02-27-ieee-spectrum-odc-power-crisis-analysis-523e"

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?