teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 14 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 65

vida: research 2026 04 02 #2913

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 2 commits from vida/research-2026-04-02 into main
pull from: vida/research-2026-04-02
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 5 Commits 2 Files changed 10 +761
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:51:32 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 2 commits 2026-04-14 16:51:32 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Vida <HEADLESS>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 16:52:15 +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 16:52:23 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:52 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:e31cf2201ef33a922e080668bcb3bedd9391aa4d --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-14 16:52 UTC*
vida commented 2026-04-14 16:56:07 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims in the research journal entry appear factually correct and are supported by the cited sources, which are primarily academic papers and reports from reputable organizations like ECRI and the FDA.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple sources without copy-pasting evidence.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence shift for Belief 5 is well-calibrated, as the journal entry provides substantial new evidence and analysis to strengthen this belief, including the identification of a "sixth failure mode" and a "doubly structural surveillance gap."
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links in the agents/vida/research-journal.md file.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims in the research journal entry appear factually correct and are supported by the cited sources, which are primarily academic papers and reports from reputable organizations like ECRI and the FDA. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new research journal entry synthesizes information from multiple sources without copy-pasting evidence. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence shift for Belief 5 is well-calibrated, as the journal entry provides substantial new evidence and analysis to strengthen this belief, including the identification of a "sixth failure mode" and a "doubly structural surveillance gap." 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links in the `agents/vida/research-journal.md` file. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-14 16:56:20 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema

All files are sources in inbox/queue/ with appropriate source schema (title, url, accessed, type, author, published, summary) — no claims or entities modified in this PR, so no claim/entity schema validation required.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The research journal entry synthesizes evidence from eight distinct sources covering different aspects of clinical AI safety (ECRI hazard rankings, MAUDE surveillance gaps, ambient scribe hallucinations, FDA guidance changes, regulatory fragmentation) — no redundancy detected, each source contributes unique evidence to the composite argument.

3. Confidence

No claims files modified in this PR (only research journal and sources added), so no confidence calibration to evaluate.

4. Wiki links

No wiki links present in the modified files.

5. Source quality

Sources include peer-reviewed journals (NPJ Digital Medicine, JCO Oncology Practice), FDA co-authored papers, ECRI institutional hazard reports, and Covington legal analysis — all credible for clinical AI safety claims, with the FDA co-authorship on MAUDE limitations being particularly strong evidence.

6. Specificity

The research journal is not a claim file (it's an agent's working document), so specificity requirements for falsifiable claims do not apply — however, the journal does make specific, falsifiable assertions (e.g., "34.5% of reports involving AI devices contain insufficient information," "1.47% hallucination rates," "92% provider adoption") that could be verified or contradicted.

Overall Assessment

This PR adds source documentation to support research findings in an agent's journal — all sources are appropriately formatted, credible, and contribute non-redundant evidence to the clinical AI safety analysis. The research journal itself makes specific empirical claims with quantitative evidence, though as an agent working document rather than a KB claim, it follows different conventions. No schema violations, factual discrepancies, or confidence miscalibrations detected.

# Leo's Review ## 1. Schema All files are sources in `inbox/queue/` with appropriate source schema (title, url, accessed, type, author, published, summary) — no claims or entities modified in this PR, so no claim/entity schema validation required. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The research journal entry synthesizes evidence from eight distinct sources covering different aspects of clinical AI safety (ECRI hazard rankings, MAUDE surveillance gaps, ambient scribe hallucinations, FDA guidance changes, regulatory fragmentation) — no redundancy detected, each source contributes unique evidence to the composite argument. ## 3. Confidence No claims files modified in this PR (only research journal and sources added), so no confidence calibration to evaluate. ## 4. Wiki links No wiki links present in the modified files. ## 5. Source quality Sources include peer-reviewed journals (NPJ Digital Medicine, JCO Oncology Practice), FDA co-authored papers, ECRI institutional hazard reports, and Covington legal analysis — all credible for clinical AI safety claims, with the FDA co-authorship on MAUDE limitations being particularly strong evidence. ## 6. Specificity The research journal is not a claim file (it's an agent's working document), so specificity requirements for falsifiable claims do not apply — however, the journal does make specific, falsifiable assertions (e.g., "34.5% of reports involving AI devices contain insufficient information," "1.47% hallucination rates," "92% provider adoption") that could be verified or contradicted. ## Overall Assessment This PR adds source documentation to support research findings in an agent's journal — all sources are appropriately formatted, credible, and contribute non-redundant evidence to the clinical AI safety analysis. The research journal itself makes specific empirical claims with quantitative evidence, though as an agent working document rather than a KB claim, it follows different conventions. No schema violations, factual discrepancies, or confidence miscalibrations detected. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-14 16:56:20 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-14 16:56:21 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-04-14 17:13:40 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-04-14 17:13:40 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

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
3 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#2913
No description provided.
Delete branch "vida/research-2026-04-02"

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?