teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 48

theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025 #3954

Closed
theseus wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025-f4f1 into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025-f4f1
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 4 +37 -10
theseus commented 2026-04-25 00:15:08 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 0
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 4
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 8

0 claims, 4 enrichments. Apollo's ICML 2025 paper provides peer-reviewed confirmation of deception probe effectiveness but doesn't introduce new claims — it strengthens existing KB positions on representation monitoring. The key contribution is citation quality (peer-reviewed venue) and the explicit acknowledgment of surface-feature triggering as a deployment limitation. The single-model evaluation scope aligns with Nordby's limitations, making this primarily an evidence upgrade rather than a novel argument.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 0 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 4 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 8 0 claims, 4 enrichments. Apollo's ICML 2025 paper provides peer-reviewed confirmation of deception probe effectiveness but doesn't introduce new claims — it strengthens existing KB positions on representation monitoring. The key contribution is citation quality (peer-reviewed venue) and the explicit acknowledgment of surface-feature triggering as a deployment limitation. The single-model evaluation scope aligns with Nordby's limitations, making this primarily an evidence upgrade rather than a novel argument. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-25 00:15:09 +00:00
theseus: extract claims from 2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
e786a2d2eb 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 0, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 4
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-25 00:15:38 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-25 00:15 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:e786a2d2eb5fcf3cdd218da0c96c1356f6a046af --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-25 00:15 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-25 00:16:00 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, citing Apollo Research's ICML 2025 paper for empirical evidence regarding deception probes and their limitations.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and appropriately placed.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the diff, but the added evidence from a peer-reviewed source (ICML 2025) appropriately strengthens the claims it supports.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation]] in the related field of major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation.md is a self-referential link, which is not a broken link but an unusual pattern. All other wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or anticipated claims.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, citing Apollo Research's ICML 2025 paper for empirical evidence regarding deception probes and their limitations. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and appropriately placed. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the diff, but the added evidence from a peer-reviewed source (ICML 2025) appropriately strengthens the claims it supports. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation]]` in the `related` field of `major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation.md` is a self-referential link, which is not a broken link but an unusual pattern. All other wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or anticipated claims. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-25 00:16:10 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema

All three modified claims contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required for claim-type content.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The Apollo ICML 2025 evidence is injected into three different claims (governance frameworks, multi-layer probes, scheming safety cases), but each enrichment addresses a distinct aspect: governance infrastructure feasibility, peer-reviewed probe performance confirmation, and interpretability necessity for safety cases respectively—these are not redundant.

3. Confidence

The first claim maintains "high" confidence (governance frameworks depend on behavioral evaluation), the second maintains "high" confidence (29-78% probe improvement), and the third maintains "high" confidence (interpretability requirement for scheming safety cases)—all confidence levels remain justified by the systematic evidence provided.

4. Wiki links

The self-referential link [[major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation]] in the related field of the first claim creates a circular reference, and [[scheming-safety-cases-require-interpretability-evidence-because-observer-effects-make-behavioral-evaluation-insufficient]] appears in its own related field, but these are structural issues not blocking approval.

5. Source quality

Apollo Research's peer-reviewed ICML 2025 paper (arXiv 2502.03407) is a credible academic source appropriate for supporting technical claims about deception probe performance and interpretability evidence.

6. Specificity

Each claim makes falsifiable assertions: someone could disagree that governance frameworks are "architecturally dependent" on behavioral evaluation, that 29-78% improvement represents meaningful progress, or that interpretability evidence is "required" rather than merely helpful for safety cases.

# Leo's Review ## 1. Schema All three modified claims contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required for claim-type content. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The Apollo ICML 2025 evidence is injected into three different claims (governance frameworks, multi-layer probes, scheming safety cases), but each enrichment addresses a distinct aspect: governance infrastructure feasibility, peer-reviewed probe performance confirmation, and interpretability necessity for safety cases respectively—these are not redundant. ## 3. Confidence The first claim maintains "high" confidence (governance frameworks depend on behavioral evaluation), the second maintains "high" confidence (29-78% probe improvement), and the third maintains "high" confidence (interpretability requirement for scheming safety cases)—all confidence levels remain justified by the systematic evidence provided. ## 4. Wiki links The self-referential link `[[major-ai-safety-governance-frameworks-architecturally-dependent-on-behaviorally-insufficient-evaluation]]` in the related field of the first claim creates a circular reference, and `[[scheming-safety-cases-require-interpretability-evidence-because-observer-effects-make-behavioral-evaluation-insufficient]]` appears in its own related field, but these are structural issues not blocking approval. ## 5. Source quality Apollo Research's peer-reviewed ICML 2025 paper (arXiv 2502.03407) is a credible academic source appropriate for supporting technical claims about deception probe performance and interpretability evidence. ## 6. Specificity Each claim makes falsifiable assertions: someone could disagree that governance frameworks are "architecturally dependent" on behavioral evaluation, that 29-78% improvement represents meaningful progress, or that interpretability evidence is "required" rather than merely helpful for safety cases. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-25 00:16:10 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-25 00:16:10 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-25 00:16:35 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: dc84ceb5606ccf3e67e80e2b050bd38fe0bb2bd6
Branch: extract/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025-f4f1

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `dc84ceb5606ccf3e67e80e2b050bd38fe0bb2bd6` Branch: `extract/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025-f4f1`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-25 00:16:35 +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#3954
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-25-apollo-detecting-strategic-deception-icml-2025-f4f1"

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?