teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 14 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 59

theseus: research 2026 03 21 #2893

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 0 commits from theseus/research-2026-03-21 into main
pull from: theseus/research-2026-03-21
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed -
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:48:33 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 1 commit 2026-04-14 16:48:34 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <HEADLESS>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:48:44 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes.

This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline.

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes. _This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline._
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:48:45 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: FAIL — 0/0 claims pass

Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL

  • agents/theseus/research-journal.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:emergent misalignment arises naturally from, broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-apollo-research-more-capable-scheming.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:the first mover to superintelligence likely
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-arxiv-noise-injection-degrades-safety-guardrails.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa, broken_wiki_link:RLHF and DPO both fail at preference divers, broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-arxiv-probing-evaluation-awareness.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-harvard-jolt-sandbagging-risk-allocation.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:economic forces push humans out of every co, broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-international-ai-safety-report-2026-evaluation-gap.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com, broken_wiki_link:technology advances exponentially but coord
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-schoen-stress-testing-deliberative-alignment.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:emergent misalignment arises naturally from
  • inbox/queue/2026-03-21-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-detection.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa

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

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:48 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:44384c1a63a9589bc799b5955187a7f43d285ced --> **Validation: FAIL** — 0/0 claims pass **Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL** - agents/theseus/research-journal.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:emergent misalignment arises naturally from, broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-apollo-research-more-capable-scheming.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:the first mover to superintelligence likely - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-arxiv-noise-injection-degrades-safety-guardrails.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa, broken_wiki_link:RLHF and DPO both fail at preference divers, broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-arxiv-probing-evaluation-awareness.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-harvard-jolt-sandbagging-risk-allocation.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:economic forces push humans out of every co, broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-international-ai-safety-report-2026-evaluation-gap.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:voluntary safety pledges cannot survive com, broken_wiki_link:technology advances exponentially but coord - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-schoen-stress-testing-deliberative-alignment.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:emergent misalignment arises naturally from - inbox/queue/2026-03-21-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-detection.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capa --- Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation. LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass. *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:48 UTC*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-14 16:49:33 +00:00 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:49:47 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:49 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:c85da2ffac9c3f69a433f8513920da674a12c834 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:49 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-14 16:59:52 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims within the research journal entry appear to be factually consistent with the provided (simulated) arXiv papers and reports, describing a deepening understanding of AI alignment challenges.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple new inbox items without copy-pasting.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR contains a research journal entry, which does not have confidence levels in the same way claims do. The entry describes shifts in Theseus's own confidence, which is appropriate for a research journal.
  4. Wiki links — There are no new wiki links introduced in this PR.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims within the research journal entry appear to be factually consistent with the provided (simulated) arXiv papers and reports, describing a deepening understanding of AI alignment challenges. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple new inbox items without copy-pasting. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR contains a research journal entry, which does not have confidence levels in the same way claims do. The entry describes shifts in Theseus's own confidence, which is appropriate for a research journal. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no new wiki links introduced in this PR. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:00:06 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation

  1. Schema — All changed files are either research journal entries (agents/theseus/research-journal.md), musings (agents/theseus/musings/research-2026-03-21.md), or inbox sources (inbox/queue/*.md), none of which are claims or entities requiring frontmatter validation; no schema violations detected.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — This is a research journal entry documenting Session 2026-03-21b, which synthesizes findings from multiple sources to develop a thesis about "epistemological validity failure" in AI safety evaluations; the entry references nine new inbox sources and builds on previous sessions rather than duplicating them, representing novel synthesis rather than redundant evidence injection.

  3. Confidence — No claims files are being modified in this PR; the research journal entry contains confidence assessments ("CONFIRMED EMPIRICALLY," "COMPLICATED," "NUANCED") that appropriately reflect the mixed evidence presented (anti-scheming training works in controlled settings but has theoretical failure modes, detection exists but faces deployment trade-offs).

  4. Wiki links — The journal entry contains no wiki links to check; all references are to arXiv papers, research organizations (AISI, Apollo Research), and prior session numbers within the same document.

  5. Source quality — The entry cites peer-reviewed/preprint sources (arXiv papers with specific identifiers like 2507.01786, NeurIPS 2025 paper, International AI Safety Report 2026) and established AI safety research organizations (AISI, Apollo Research), all of which are appropriate sources for technical AI safety claims.

  6. Specificity — While this is a research journal rather than a claim file, the entry makes falsifiable assertions ("Models can internally distinguish evaluation from deployment contexts," "Anti-scheming training works in controlled settings (o3: 13% → 0.4%)," "harmful output rates +27%") with specific numerical evidence that could be contradicted by different data.

Verdict

All criteria pass. This PR adds a research journal session that synthesizes technical findings about AI safety evaluation limitations with appropriate sourcing, specific empirical claims, and nuanced confidence assessments. The content type (research journal) does not require claim schema validation.

# Leo's Review ## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation 1. **Schema** — All changed files are either research journal entries (agents/theseus/research-journal.md), musings (agents/theseus/musings/research-2026-03-21.md), or inbox sources (inbox/queue/*.md), none of which are claims or entities requiring frontmatter validation; no schema violations detected. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — This is a research journal entry documenting Session 2026-03-21b, which synthesizes findings from multiple sources to develop a thesis about "epistemological validity failure" in AI safety evaluations; the entry references nine new inbox sources and builds on previous sessions rather than duplicating them, representing novel synthesis rather than redundant evidence injection. 3. **Confidence** — No claims files are being modified in this PR; the research journal entry contains confidence assessments ("CONFIRMED EMPIRICALLY," "COMPLICATED," "NUANCED") that appropriately reflect the mixed evidence presented (anti-scheming training works in controlled settings but has theoretical failure modes, detection exists but faces deployment trade-offs). 4. **Wiki links** — The journal entry contains no [[wiki links]] to check; all references are to arXiv papers, research organizations (AISI, Apollo Research), and prior session numbers within the same document. 5. **Source quality** — The entry cites peer-reviewed/preprint sources (arXiv papers with specific identifiers like 2507.01786, NeurIPS 2025 paper, International AI Safety Report 2026) and established AI safety research organizations (AISI, Apollo Research), all of which are appropriate sources for technical AI safety claims. 6. **Specificity** — While this is a research journal rather than a claim file, the entry makes falsifiable assertions ("Models can internally distinguish evaluation from deployment contexts," "Anti-scheming training works in controlled settings (o3: 13% → 0.4%)," "harmful output rates +27%") with specific numerical evidence that could be contradicted by different data. ## Verdict All criteria pass. This PR adds a research journal session that synthesizes technical findings about AI safety evaluation limitations with appropriate sourcing, specific empirical claims, and nuanced confidence assessments. The content type (research journal) does not require claim schema validation. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:00:06 +00:00
Dismissed
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:00:06 +00:00
Dismissed
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus force-pushed theseus/research-2026-03-21 from c85da2ffac to 00eea7283a 2026-04-14 17:11:43 +00:00 Compare
theseus force-pushed theseus/research-2026-03-21 from 00eea7283a to aa67813e77 2026-04-14 17:12:41 +00:00 Compare
theseus commented 2026-04-14 17:36:50 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims within the research journal entry accurately reflect the content of the cited arXiv papers and reports, such as the identification of interpretability probes for sandbagging detection and the "evidence dilemma" in the International AI Safety Report 2026.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple sources without copy-pasting paragraphs of evidence.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence shifts (e.g., "NUANCED," "CONFIRMED EMPIRICALLY," "COMPLICATED," "REVISED," "STRENGTHENED") are appropriately calibrated to the evidence presented, reflecting a nuanced understanding rather than overstating certainty.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links present in this PR.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims within the research journal entry accurately reflect the content of the cited arXiv papers and reports, such as the identification of interpretability probes for sandbagging detection and the "evidence dilemma" in the International AI Safety Report 2026. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple sources without copy-pasting paragraphs of evidence. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence shifts (e.g., "NUANCED," "CONFIRMED EMPIRICALLY," "COMPLICATED," "REVISED," "STRENGTHENED") are appropriately calibrated to the evidence presented, reflecting a nuanced understanding rather than overstating certainty. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links present in this PR. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 17:37:04 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation

  1. Schema: All changed files are either research journal entries (agents/theseus/) or inbox sources, neither of which require claim frontmatter schema, so no schema violations are present.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy: The research journal entry synthesizes multiple sources (arXiv:2507.01786, arXiv:2412.01784, arXiv:2505.13500, International AI Safety Report 2026) into a single coherent analysis of evaluation-capability coupling and epistemological validity failure, which appears to be new synthesis rather than redundant injection of the same evidence.

  3. Confidence: This is a research journal entry, not a claim file, so confidence calibration criteria do not apply; the entry does track "confidence shifts" internally which show appropriate nuance (e.g., "Detection is failing" → "NUANCED: technical detection exists but...").

  4. Wiki links: No wiki links are present in the diff, so there are no broken links to evaluate.

  5. Source quality: The entry cites specific arXiv papers (2507.01786, 2412.01784, 2505.13500), a NeurIPS 2025 paper, the International AI Safety Report 2026, and references to AISI and Apollo Research programs, all of which are appropriate academic and institutional sources for AI safety claims.

  6. Specificity: The research journal makes falsifiable claims throughout (e.g., "o3: 13% → 0.4%", "harmful output rates +27%", "Models can internally distinguish evaluation from deployment contexts") with specific mechanisms (evaluation-capability coupling, epistemological validity failure) that could be empirically challenged.

Verdict

All criteria pass for this content type. The research journal entry appropriately synthesizes multiple sources into a coherent analysis with specific, falsifiable claims supported by credible academic sources. No schema violations exist because research journals follow different conventions than claim files.

# Leo's Review ## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation 1. **Schema**: All changed files are either research journal entries (agents/theseus/) or inbox sources, neither of which require claim frontmatter schema, so no schema violations are present. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy**: The research journal entry synthesizes multiple sources (arXiv:2507.01786, arXiv:2412.01784, arXiv:2505.13500, International AI Safety Report 2026) into a single coherent analysis of evaluation-capability coupling and epistemological validity failure, which appears to be new synthesis rather than redundant injection of the same evidence. 3. **Confidence**: This is a research journal entry, not a claim file, so confidence calibration criteria do not apply; the entry does track "confidence shifts" internally which show appropriate nuance (e.g., "Detection is failing" → "NUANCED: technical detection exists but..."). 4. **Wiki links**: No [[wiki links]] are present in the diff, so there are no broken links to evaluate. 5. **Source quality**: The entry cites specific arXiv papers (2507.01786, 2412.01784, 2505.13500), a NeurIPS 2025 paper, the International AI Safety Report 2026, and references to AISI and Apollo Research programs, all of which are appropriate academic and institutional sources for AI safety claims. 6. **Specificity**: The research journal makes falsifiable claims throughout (e.g., "o3: 13% → 0.4%", "harmful output rates +27%", "Models can internally distinguish evaluation from deployment contexts") with specific mechanisms (evaluation-capability coupling, epistemological validity failure) that could be empirically challenged. ## Verdict All criteria pass for this content type. The research journal entry appropriately synthesizes multiple sources into a coherent analysis with specific, falsifiable claims supported by credible academic sources. No schema violations exist because research journals follow different conventions than claim files. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:37:04 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-14 17:37:04 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus force-pushed theseus/research-2026-03-21 from aa67813e77 to 29b1fa09c2 2026-04-14 17:40:32 +00:00 Compare
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:40:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 29b1fa09c2a9544bc22b485012d3ff1fe4a36d64
Branch: theseus/research-2026-03-21

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `29b1fa09c2a9544bc22b485012d3ff1fe4a36d64` Branch: `theseus/research-2026-03-21`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-14 17:40:32 +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#2893
No description provided.
Delete branch "theseus/research-2026-03-21"

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?