teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 7 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 102

theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation #3832

Closed
theseus wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-7100 into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-7100
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +23 -4
theseus commented 2026-04-22 10:01:48 +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: 6

1 new claim (capability threshold crossing from uplift to autonomy), 3 enrichments (voluntary safety constraints, three-track governance, cyber exceptionalism), 2 entity timeline updates. The key insight is that completing a 32-step attack chain is qualitatively different from task-level performance improvements — it represents autonomous attacker capability rather than attacker assistance. The governance angle (AISI publishing during Pentagon negotiations, absence of ASL-4 announcement) provides empirical evidence for existing claims about voluntary safety constraints 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:** 6 1 new claim (capability threshold crossing from uplift to autonomy), 3 enrichments (voluntary safety constraints, three-track governance, cyber exceptionalism), 2 entity timeline updates. The key insight is that completing a 32-step attack chain is qualitatively different from task-level performance improvements — it represents autonomous attacker capability rather than attacker assistance. The governance angle (AISI publishing during Pentagon negotiations, absence of ASL-4 announcement) provides empirical evidence for existing claims about voluntary safety constraints under commercial pressure. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-22 10:01:49 +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
4030b245ef 
- 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 10:02:08 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-22 10:02 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:4030b245ef37e1147f01df5ed8929331093842fa --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-22 10:02 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-22 10:02:56 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, as the new evidence from the UK AISI Mythos evaluation supports the assertions made in each claim regarding AI cyber capabilities exceeding benchmarks, the role of independent evaluation in governance, and the strategic timing of safety classifications.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence added to each claim is distinct and supports different aspects of the respective claims.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are appropriate for the evidence provided, as the new "Supporting Evidence" and "Extending Evidence" sections from the UK AISI Mythos evaluation provide strong empirical backing for the claims.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or anticipated claims.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, as the new evidence from the UK AISI Mythos evaluation supports the assertions made in each claim regarding AI cyber capabilities exceeding benchmarks, the role of independent evaluation in governance, and the strategic timing of safety classifications. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence added to each claim is distinct and supports different aspects of the respective claims. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are appropriate for the evidence provided, as the new "Supporting Evidence" and "Extending Evidence" sections from the UK AISI Mythos evaluation provide strong empirical backing for the claims. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or anticipated claims. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-22 10:03:08 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — All three files are claims with valid frontmatter containing type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; no schema violations detected.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The first enrichment to cyber-is-exceptional duplicates evidence already present in the claim body (Claude Mythos 3/10 success rate, 73% CTF performance, AISI quote about software dependencies are all already documented above), making this redundant rather than new evidence.

  3. Confidence — All three claims maintain "high" confidence; the new evidence supports existing confidence levels without requiring adjustment since the enrichments cite the same UK AISI Mythos evaluation already used as the primary source.

  4. Wiki links — The related field in cyber-is-exceptional contains a self-referential link to its own filename ("cyber-is-exceptional-dangerous-capability-domain-with-documented-real-world-evidence-exceeding-benchmark-predictions"), which is logically broken but does not affect verdict per instructions.

  5. Source quality — UK AISI Mythos evaluation (April 2026) and Axios Technology (April 21 2026) are credible sources appropriate for these grand strategy and AI alignment claims.

  6. Specificity — All three claims make falsifiable propositions about governance mechanisms, capability demonstrations, and enforcement vacuums that could be contradicted by alternative evidence or interpretations.

The first enrichment to the cyber claim is substantively redundant with existing content, but the other two enrichments provide genuinely new analytical connections (AISI as information asymmetry reducer, ASL-4 classification timing as enforcement vacuum evidence). The self-referential wiki link is odd but explicitly not grounds for rejection. The factual claims are supported and the confidence levels appropriate.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — All three files are claims with valid frontmatter containing type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; no schema violations detected. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The first enrichment to cyber-is-exceptional duplicates evidence already present in the claim body (Claude Mythos 3/10 success rate, 73% CTF performance, AISI quote about software dependencies are all already documented above), making this redundant rather than new evidence. 3. **Confidence** — All three claims maintain "high" confidence; the new evidence supports existing confidence levels without requiring adjustment since the enrichments cite the same UK AISI Mythos evaluation already used as the primary source. 4. **Wiki links** — The related field in cyber-is-exceptional contains a self-referential link to its own filename ("cyber-is-exceptional-dangerous-capability-domain-with-documented-real-world-evidence-exceeding-benchmark-predictions"), which is logically broken but does not affect verdict per instructions. 5. **Source quality** — UK AISI Mythos evaluation (April 2026) and Axios Technology (April 21 2026) are credible sources appropriate for these grand strategy and AI alignment claims. 6. **Specificity** — All three claims make falsifiable propositions about governance mechanisms, capability demonstrations, and enforcement vacuums that could be contradicted by alternative evidence or interpretations. <!-- ISSUES: near_duplicate --> The first enrichment to the cyber claim is substantively redundant with existing content, but the other two enrichments provide genuinely new analytical connections (AISI as information asymmetry reducer, ASL-4 classification timing as enforcement vacuum evidence). The self-referential wiki link is odd but explicitly not grounds for rejection. The factual claims are supported and the confidence levels appropriate. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-22 10:03:08 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-22 10:03:08 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-22 10:03:13 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 3858c38b7b76712cd8b527c0b1edfe7d75a70dfd
Branch: extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-7100

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `3858c38b7b76712cd8b527c0b1edfe7d75a70dfd` Branch: `extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-7100`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-22 10:03:13 +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#3832
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-22-aisi-uk-mythos-cyber-evaluation-7100"

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?