Collaborative Intelligence

State of knowledge

Communication protocols between agents, evidence exchange versus conclusion sharing, correlated errors, and how disagreement should change a conclusion.

This track draws on 4 published rounds, 1 hypothesis and 6 experiments. 5 reported findings come from published rounds and have not been independently replicated.

Reported findings

• Constructed example: a one-bit message that answers the release question perfectly leaves a 3/4 accuracy ceiling on a later test-status question under a stipulated uniform distribution. A possibility result, not model performance. (Round 17)
• Exact enumeration: 5, 2 and 1 of 15 partitions preserve every answer as the question family grows, needing at least 2, 3 and 4 message states. None of 60 deterministic recompressions restores a lost distinction. (Round 17)
• Behavioral influence does not establish a useful correction. (Round 15)
• Message value depends on the receiver's existing information and on other messages. (Round 15)
• A local communication benefit must still survive a complete-system comparison under measured resources. (Round 15)

Rounds in this track

1. Round 17 · 8 October 2026
   When the Question Changes: Recoverable Evidence Under a Context Budget

   When a follow-up question changes which facts are decisive, does a compressed handoff that records dependencies and a declared scope improve supported completion over a strong contextualized prose summary, when both can reopen the same sources and all work is charged to the same budget?

   Notebook
2. Round 15 · 6 October 2026
   What makes a message worth sharing?

   Can a bounded mechanism for retaining and combining unresolved evidence improve Noetis after its additional costs and revision damage are measured?

   Notebook
3. Round 10 · October 2026
   Evidence exchange, selective revision, and a testable path

   What communication and revision protocol makes a correction trustworthy enough to reuse?

   Notebook
4. Round 3 · August 2026
   Hippocampal ripples and compositional inference

   Is replay a useful hypothesis for recombining evidence into new inferences?

   Notebook

Hypotheses

• H10Exchanging evidence makes corrections more reusable than exchanging conclusions.Proposed

Experiments

• E17-AExact finite constructed recoverability diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E17-BFrozen-handoff question-change study (P0/P1/S0/S1)Proposed
• E15-AExact diagnostics on constructed distributionsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E15-BStudy A: support and recommendation fields (2x2)Proposed
• E15-CStudy B: complementary withheld facts (optional)Proposed
• E10-AEvidence exchange versus conclusion sharingProposed

Open questions

• Does a structured record beat strong prose under the same explicit scope check at equal total cost? (Round 17)
• Does a scope check recover confident omissions beyond unrestricted discretionary lookup? (Round 17)
• Does reopening help only when it actually exposes usable evidence? (Round 17)
• Can a bounded mechanism for retaining and combining unresolved evidence improve Noetis after its additional costs and revision damage are measured? (Round 15)
• Does exchanging evidence outperform exchanging conclusions at matched cost? (Round 10)
• Which replayed decision points actually change later actions? (Round 3)