teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 3

theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation #3806

Closed
theseus wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-d1f5 into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-d1f5
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 3 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +21
theseus commented 2026-04-22 09:13:14 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

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

1 claim (capability threshold crossing from uplift to autonomy), 3 enrichments (cyber capabilities, voluntary constraints under commercial pressure, independent evaluation as governance instrument), 2 entity updates (AISI and Anthropic timeline entries). The 32-step attack chain completion is the key novel finding — it's the first empirical evidence of end-to-end autonomous cyber operations, which is qualitatively different from task-level capability improvements. The governance angle (AISI publishing during Pentagon negotiations without corresponding ASL-4 announcement) enriches existing claims about voluntary commitments under commercial pressure.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 0 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 3 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 5 1 claim (capability threshold crossing from uplift to autonomy), 3 enrichments (cyber capabilities, voluntary constraints under commercial pressure, independent evaluation as governance instrument), 2 entity updates (AISI and Anthropic timeline entries). The 32-step attack chain completion is the key novel finding — it's the first empirical evidence of end-to-end autonomous cyber operations, which is qualitatively different from task-level capability improvements. The governance angle (AISI publishing during Pentagon negotiations without corresponding ASL-4 announcement) enriches existing claims about voluntary commitments under commercial pressure. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-22 09:13:15 +00:00
theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
1f8c25af13 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 0, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 3
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-22 09:14:02 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-22 09:14 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:1f8c25af13de629b8dc341a17b33cd88ee911722 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-22 09:14 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-22 09:14:19 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided sources, describing specific events and evaluations.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; while the "UK AISI Mythos evaluation, April 2026" is cited multiple times, the evidence provided for each claim is distinct and tailored to the specific argument of that claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claims do not have explicit confidence levels, but the evidence provided is specific and supports the assertions made.
  4. Wiki links — There are no wiki links present in this PR.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided sources, describing specific events and evaluations. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; while the "UK AISI Mythos evaluation, April 2026" is cited multiple times, the evidence provided for each claim is distinct and tailored to the specific argument of that claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claims do not have explicit confidence levels, but the evidence provided is specific and supports the assertions made. 4. **Wiki links** — There are no wiki links present in this PR. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-22 09:14:31 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — All three files are claims (type: claim) with existing valid frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments add only evidence sections which do not require additional frontmatter.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The first file adds near-duplicate evidence (Mythos 73% CTF success and 32-step attack chain already documented in previous evidence block with nearly identical wording), and the third file also adds redundant Mythos evaluation evidence already present in the previous evidence block about timing during Pentagon negotiations.

  3. Confidence — First claim is "high" confidence (appropriate given multiple independent evaluations), second claim is "high" confidence (supported by multi-track legal analysis), third claim is "high" confidence (justified by documented timing of evaluation during negotiations).

  4. Wiki links — No wiki links appear in any of the enrichments being added.

  5. Source quality — UK AISI Mythos evaluation (April 2026) and Stanford CodeX analysis are credible sources appropriate for these claims about AI capabilities and governance mechanisms.

  6. Specificity — All three claims are falsifiable propositions with specific architectural or empirical assertions that could be contradicted by evidence (someone could dispute whether cyber exceeds benchmarks, whether governance has sequential ceilings, or whether voluntary constraints lack enforcement).

Issues Identified

The first enrichment to the cyber capabilities claim is nearly verbatim duplicate of the evidence block immediately preceding it (both cite Mythos 73% CTF success, 3/10 completion of 32-step attack chain, and AISI quote about software dependency mapping). The third file's enrichment also substantially duplicates the previous evidence block about Mythos evaluation timing during Pentagon negotiations, though it adds the interpretive point about absence of public ASL-4 announcement.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — All three files are claims (type: claim) with existing valid frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments add only evidence sections which do not require additional frontmatter. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The first file adds near-duplicate evidence (Mythos 73% CTF success and 32-step attack chain already documented in previous evidence block with nearly identical wording), and the third file also adds redundant Mythos evaluation evidence already present in the previous evidence block about timing during Pentagon negotiations. 3. **Confidence** — First claim is "high" confidence (appropriate given multiple independent evaluations), second claim is "high" confidence (supported by multi-track legal analysis), third claim is "high" confidence (justified by documented timing of evaluation during negotiations). 4. **Wiki links** — No wiki links appear in any of the enrichments being added. 5. **Source quality** — UK AISI Mythos evaluation (April 2026) and Stanford CodeX analysis are credible sources appropriate for these claims about AI capabilities and governance mechanisms. 6. **Specificity** — All three claims are falsifiable propositions with specific architectural or empirical assertions that could be contradicted by evidence (someone could dispute whether cyber exceeds benchmarks, whether governance has sequential ceilings, or whether voluntary constraints lack enforcement). ## Issues Identified The first enrichment to the cyber capabilities claim is nearly verbatim duplicate of the evidence block immediately preceding it (both cite Mythos 73% CTF success, 3/10 completion of 32-step attack chain, and AISI quote about software dependency mapping). The third file's enrichment also substantially duplicates the previous evidence block about Mythos evaluation timing during Pentagon negotiations, though it adds the interpretive point about absence of public ASL-4 announcement. <!-- ISSUES: near_duplicate --> <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-04-22 09:58:53 +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
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#3806
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-d1f5"

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?