Reasoning & Verification

State of knowledge

Claim-level evidence review, bounded repair, revision drift, terminal release gates, and calibration of the final revised answer.

This track draws on 18 published rounds, 69 hypotheses and 33 experiments. 36 reported findings come from published rounds and have not been independently replicated.

Reported findings

• 34 controls; 8 present, 3 partial, 23 absent; 26 critical controls partial or absent; fail-closed verdict BLOCKED. The checker validates the declared manifest, not the correctness of the human code review. (Round 30)
• Frozen snapshots, source versions, hashes, packet spans, model traces and usage telemetry are useful foundations but do not establish root-action fidelity, separation or unresolved structural equivalence. (Round 30)
• Three content probes identify all 36 observable response functions but root provenance in 0% of the 72 structural worlds. Provenance twins are interventionally equivalent under every admissible content probe. Exact diagnostic result, not a population estimate. (Round 29)
• Greedy entropy and minimax splitting identify all behaviors with 2.50 mean probes. Equating strict local response with root independence is wrong in 50% of the deliberately paired worlds. Verified root rotation establishes a prospective boundary, not historical independence. (Round 29)
• Declared-variant model intervals covered exact conditional probabilities in 100.00% of weighted histories under all three authored priors. Held-out hidden-common-origin coverage was 72.08% (uniform), 60.57% (benign), and 65.43% (issuer shift). These are exact constructed results, not production estimates. (Round 28)
• All hidden-common-origin histories remained compatible with the declared set. Passive adequacy AUROC ranged from 0.488 to 0.577. TSAR did not systematically dominate scalar routing at matched coverage; most cells tied. (Round 28)
• A model-set unanimity gate separates verdict safety from scheduling efficiency under fixed verification budgets: four policies using the 116-scenario gate produced no wrong categorical verdict in any of the 3,712 in-model policy-world runs, while a nominal target-entropy policy resolved 100 percent of cases but falsely emitted NO_CHANGE in 11.23 percent of changed cases in one regime. (Round 27)
• An out-of-model common-origin stress shows that extra evidence can increase false confidence: with the hidden_common_origin variant excluded from the planning set, the exact MSAV policy's false-clean rate reached 33.68 percent among changed worlds at budget 9. Myopic adaptivity can underperform a fixed target-first schedule. (Round 27)
• In the declared one-fault universe, SACP leaves eight opposite-target ambiguity pairs; adding one independently rooted external commitment reduces that count to zero. Under two faults, SACP plus external commitment leaves 26 pairs; adding an independently rooted behavior probe reduces that count to zero. These are exact finite-model counts, not prevalence-weighted rates. (Round 26)
• Against three failed roots, four genuinely independent target-sensitive roots identify the target in the declared model. If the witness shares the issuer root, no available set identifies change against three failed roots. Root independence is an assumption. (Round 26)
• On 80 authored traces, SACP alerted on 55 of 60 gap traces and none of the 20 negative controls (trace recall 0.9167, precision 1.0000, claim-weighted recall 0.8944). Revalidate-all achieved 1.0000 recall but alerted on all 20 negative controls and created 400 claim-review tasks, compared with 161 for SACP. A sequence-only policy falsely alerted on all five benign-reordering controls. These numbers show that the implementation conforms to the authored distinctions. They do not estimate production precision, recall, incident prevalence, reliability, cost, or user impact. (Round 25)
• On 23 authored fixtures, the proposed authority-lineage selector preserved every expected claim edge with one conservative extra edge, while repository-only selectors missed every deliberately non-repository fixture. Conformance to an authored model, not evidence of production effectiveness. (Round 24)
• The hybrid selector found all three artifacts labeled relevant in the real interval, including one uniquely added by an independently derived import view. It also selected four irrelevant artifacts and invalidated two claims that adjudication later found unaffected. Design evidence from one interval, not a general validation result. (Round 23)
• On the actual 127-path diff, the measurement-only watchlist selected 0 of the 17 audited critical paths, the filename heuristic 12 of 17 with 25 false positives, retest-all all 127, and the authored CTAG manifest exactly the 17. The 17-path set and tags were manually authored from the same change set, so this is not discovery accuracy or compute savings. (Round 22)
• On 32 authored mutation fixtures CTAG routed 32 of 32 exactly (direct watchlist 9, filename keyword 7, retest all 3). Specification tests on authored fixtures, not evidence of out-of-sample accuracy. (Round 22)
• Two historical claims preserved; five current claims made stale, then restored after direct inspection; two hypotheses left untested. (Round 22)
• Under the current three-write best-effort persistence model, seven of eight possible write states are incomplete yet do not block release; ABMG audit-qualifies none of those seven. Logical state-space result, not a measured production rate. (Round 21)
• Ten envelope-only mutations collide under the current content-only fingerprint, 24 equal-byte different-version source pairs and 24 distinct provider-response pairs collapse under the current records, and five bad stream fixtures are falsely accepted by a development model of the current parser; the ABMG projection separates or rejects all of them. Constructed fixtures, not production results. (Round 21)
• Endpoint and generic operational records miss evidence-specific corruption: A0 detected 2 of 12 mutation families and A1 detected 4 of 12, while content-bound receipts detected all 12 across 96 episodes with zero clean false positives. Constructed-fixture results, not model performance. (Round 20)
• An operator-only digest chain does not survive a privileged rewrite by that operator: after simulated rewrite, operator-only arms detected 0 of 12 families. Receipts bind observable delivery under assumptions; they do not prove source truth, completeness before emission, provider-internal processing, semantic support, or causal evidence use. (Round 20)
• Constructed collision: terminal output plus aggregate usage cannot determine whether the corrective source was delivered. A narrow indistinguishability result over constructed records, not model performance. (Round 19)
• Static audit: 4 of 18 collector-contract requirements present, 3 partial, 11 absent at the required granularity. (Round 19)
• Constructed example: a timestamp-only newest-recorded rule returns a late January correction (60) for a March current query whose correct fixture answer is 75. A counterexample over hand-specified records, not model performance. (Round 18)
• Exact check: 24 temporal-query checks hold across all six arrival orders of the three-record example, plus 12 checks of baseline failure, conflict handling, dependency repair, alternative support, and source integrity. (Round 18)
• A supported fact does not establish decision sufficiency: the exact fictional policy counterexample leaves both review decisions possible. (Round 16)
• Exact finite-world enumeration yields 3,778 determined and 3,134 underdetermined pairs among 6,912 pairs. These are checker diagnostics, not model performance. (Round 16)
• A valid decision-changing pair establishes a gap within the modeled scope; failed bounded search does not certify completeness. Scope expansion can reopen a decision. (Round 16)
• Exact constructed example: 97.5% snapshot-label accuracy coexists with a reversed comparison (true −2 points, judged +3 points). This is a possibility result on invented labels, not a measured Noetis failure rate. (Round 14)
• Exact constructed example: a pooled confusion correction restores the overall mean to 79% while the corrected comparison stays in the wrong direction (+3.4054 points). (Round 14)
• Exact constructed example: six valid identical-artifact couplings narrow whole-cohort bounds from [0, 20] to [6, 14] points without resolving either artifact's correctness. (Round 14)
• Replaying the current scorer reproduced all 119 nonempty stored scores. (Round 13)
• Appending the full source as a labeled appendix removed detected-issue credit in all 114 outputs that had it. (Round 13)
• Removing appended approved findings changed detection counts in 44 of 59 nonempty panel outputs. (Round 13)
• Saved results keep the final brief and latest check, but not before/after pairs, so a repair flag cannot distinguish a fix from a new error. (Round 13)
• Usage data existed for 19 panel cases and no baseline cases. (Round 13)
• Exact synthetic diagnostics show how candidate thresholds trade coverage for an upper risk bound at fixed δ = 5% and family size 3. These are worked calculations, not model performance. (Round 12)

Rounds in this track

1. Round 30 · 2026-10-21
   Can We Intervene for Real? A Fail-Closed Readiness Gate for Active Evidence-Lineage Trials

   Can the current Encevra/Noetis workflow execute an active evidence-lineage trial whose causal interpretation is warranted, and what minimum fail-closed protocol is required before E29-B may run?

   Notebook
2. Round 29 · 20 October 2026
   Round 29 - Make the Evidence Move: Active Source Interventions and the Limits of Dependency Discovery

   Under a fixed verification budget, which controlled interventions can distinguish independent evidence roots from shared-root facades in a collaborative reasoning system, and what evidence justifies an independence claim rather than an explicit unresolved-equivalence finding?

   Notebook
3. Round 28 · 19 October 2026
   Round 28 - Confidence About What? Separating Target Probability, Structural Ambiguity, and Model Adequacy

   Under a fixed evidence and compute budget, does separating target probability, structural ambiguity, and model adequacy support safer abstention than a single confidence scalar?

   Notebook
4. Round 27 · 18 October 2026
   Round 27 - Which Check Should Run Next? Model-Set-Safe Verification Under a Fixed Budget

   Under a fixed observation budget, can a sequential verification policy improve correct resolution while avoiding harmful false confidence when the cost, efficacy, and independence of checks are uncertain?

   Notebook
5. Round 26 · 17 October 2026
   Round 26 - What Can the Watchers Ever Know? Minimum Observables for Detecting Omitted Change

   For each omitted-change failure class, which changed and unchanged worlds remain observationally identical, and what minimum independently rooted observable or trust assumption separates them?

   Notebook
6. Round 25 · 16 October 2026
   When Silence Looks Like Stability: Detecting Missing Change Evidence in Collaborative AI Systems

   Can an AI assurance system distinguish a genuinely quiet authority from a broken, delayed, stale, selectively silent, or common-mode observation path?

   Notebook
7. Round 24 · 15 October 2026
   Do Two Watchers Count as Two? Authority Lineage and Common-Origin Failure in Claim Revalidation

   How should Encevra represent the lineage and authority of change evidence so that multiple analyses of one source are not mistaken for independent coverage, and so that changes outside the repository can trigger bounded claim revalidation?

   Notebook
8. Round 23 · 14 October 2026
   Can the Gate Catch Tomorrow's Change? A Prospective Shadow Trial of Claim Revalidation

   Can a prospective gate notice when a genuinely later software change should make a current claim stale, without unnecessarily withdrawing unrelated claims or rewriting history?

   Notebook
9. Round 22 · 13 October 2026
   When Does an Audit Expire? Dependency-Triggered Revalidation for Rapidly Changing Agent Systems

   Can a typed claim-dependency graph automatically mark only the assurance claims affected by code, configuration, data, or external-contract changes as stale, preserve historically valid results, and require the right revalidation?

   Notebook
10. Round 21 · 12 October 2026
    Where Did the Trace Break? An Attempt-Bound, Fail-Closed Measurement Gate for Noetis

    Can a boundary-tapped, attempt-bound, atomic measurement gate reconstruct every Noetis provider attempt and refuse audit-qualified release when the trace is incomplete, at fixed model compute?

    Notebook
11. Round 20 · 11 October 2026
    What Must the Log Reveal? Minimal-Disclosure Receipts for Verifiable Evidence Delivery

    Can salted, ordered, independently witnessed invocation receipts preserve exact application-observable evidence delivery for authorized audit while keeping raw prompts and source text out of routine telemetry, with acceptable leakage, false-alarm, storage, latency, and reconstruction costs?

    Notebook
12. Round 19 · 10 October 2026
    Did the Evidence Reach the Agent? Reconstructable Evidence Lifecycles for Reliable Experiments

    Can an Evidence Lifecycle Observation Contract reconstruct which immutable source version was admitted, what ordered material crossed each model invocation boundary, and how claims and the terminal output were bound to those events, better than final records and generic traces?

    Notebook
13. Round 18 · 9 October 2026
    When Evidence Changes: Versioned Support and Bounded Belief Repair

    At fixed total work and source access, does an append-only record that distinguishes valid time from recorded time and tracks claim dependencies improve current, historical, as-known, and downstream-consequence answers over strong overwrite, chronological-history, and newest-recorded baselines, without increasing false invalidation, unhelpful dispute states, or cost?

    Notebook
14. Round 16 · 7 October 2026
    Before the Answer Closes: Detecting Missing Decision Conditions

    At a fixed total inference and source-access budget, does requiring a validated pair of evidence-compatible scenarios with different decisions reduce unsupported commitment more effectively than a strong missing-information checklist, without reducing useful completion or increasing harmful revision?

    Notebook
15. Round 14 · 5 October 2026
    When the judges are uncertain: measuring revision gains without an infallible evaluator

    Under what evaluation design does an apparent revision gain survive plausible uncertainty and differential bias in the labels used to measure it?

    Notebook
16. Round 13 · 4 October 2026
    From final scores to measurable corrections

    Can saved Noetis records show whether a correction actually helped?

    Notebook
17. Round 12 · 4 October 2026
    After the last revision: calibrating release risk

    Can the final revised answer be released under a defined selective-risk target?

    Notebook
18. Round 11 · 3 October 2026
    When should collaborators spend their next unit of compute?

    Should verification effort go where a specific check is predicted to repair, rather than where uncertainty is highest?

    Notebook

Hypotheses

• H30.1At the audited commit, the current E29-B path fails at least one critical Root, Intervention, Separation, Receipt, and Equivalence control.Proposed
• H30.2The dual-path comparator detects at least 80% of injected off-target, partial and false-success actions and improves detection by at least 20 percentage points over signed self-report at the same action count.Proposed
• H30.3Per-arm cache and memory receipts plus canaries reduce undetected contamination by at least 75% relative to logical arm labels alone.Proposed
• H30.4An unresolved-equivalence state reduces false root-independence by at least 30% while retaining at least 70% structural-decision coverage.Proposed
• H30.5Full RISE lowers false-root-independence and harmful revision relative to the best active baseline at matched total compute, without more than a 1.5 percentage-point loss in accuracy or a 2% compute-budget overrun.Proposed
• H29.1Within a correctly specified finite response-function family, an adaptive separating policy will decide the target behavioral-dependency predicate more often than passive repetition at equal total cost.Proposed
• H29.2When separate-root and shared-root implementations are interventionally equivalent under the admissible content interface, no content-only policy will outperform the prior on root provenance.Proposed
• H29.3Requiring verified action receipts will reduce false-clean dependency judgments under unknown and off-target interventions compared with trusting intended targets.Proposed
• H29.4Verified root rotation plus path isolation will reduce prospective shared-failure correlation and false corroboration more than content perturbation alone.Proposed
• H29.5Stopping when all surviving candidates share the same decision label will preserve target decision accuracy while using fewer interventions than full graph identification.Proposed
• H29.6Certificates formed without reserved out-of-version-space validation will exhibit a higher false-clean rate on omitted mechanisms than certificates with a reserved validation action.Proposed
• H28.1For every evaluated history generated by a declared model with matched prior and likelihood, the exact conditional target probability lies inside the reported model interval.Supported
• H28.2At matched coverage, TSAR's conservative set risk yields lower delayed-correction risk than pooled scalar risk across both declared variants and all preregistered priors.Inconclusive
• H28.3Surprise, interval width, or compatibility detects the held-out hidden-common-origin variant with AUROC at least 0.75 and useful precision above prevalence.Rejected
• H28.4Replacing one passive repeat check with a provenance-changing intervention will raise held-out model detection above AUROC 0.75 and reduce false-clean rate at equal total cost.Proposed
• H28.5On a preregistered multi-agent benchmark with delayed adjudication, an interoperable TSAR schema will improve correction-risk Brier score and 90%-coverage risk over a one-number confidence message, without reducing task accuracy or increasing total tokens/tool cost.Proposed
• H27.1For every scenario inside a correctly specified finite model set, a target-unanimity gate will never emit the wrong categorical target.Proposed
• H27.2At matched compute in strata with correlated evidence roots, a model-set gate will have a lower harmful false-clean rate than a nominal independence gate, while retaining nonzero correct resolution.Proposed
• H27.3Given the same declared model, costs, and planning distribution, finite-horizon optimization will weakly dominate any included fixed schedule on expected categorical resolution.Proposed
• H27.4A greedy next-check policy can underperform a target-first fixed schedule because an attractive immediate reduction can block an affordable completing path.Proposed
• H27.5When apparently independent checks share an omitted root, increasing budget can increase the conditional false-clean rate.Proposed
• H27.6A scheduler that models both target value and check efficacy will improve cost-to-correct-resolution or selective risk under shifts in check reliability.Proposed
• H27.7Among abstained cases, the recorded number and structure of cross-target scenario pairs will predict which additional checks later change the answer.Proposed
• H26.1Under one injected silent-root fault, SACP plus one genuinely independent target channel has fewer harmful false-stability certificates than SACP at matched total cost.Proposed
• H26.2Three root-disjoint target channels are sufficient against two modeled silent-root failures in the implementation.Proposed
• H26.3Removing or falsifying root-lineage metadata increases false stability under common-origin witness failures.Proposed
• H26.4Health-only checks improve abstention and reduce false certification for visible path failures but do not detect healthy-looking selective non-emission.Proposed
• H26.5Additional LLM agents sharing the same evidence root do not match one independent external channel at equal inference and observation cost.Proposed
• H26.6Ambiguity-directed probes reduce residual pair weight per observation unit relative to fixed and random probes.Proposed
• H26.7OSC's safety gain is not fully explained by abstention.Proposed
• H22-1Under equal total verification budget, CTAG will produce a lower stale-claim escape rate than no invalidation, fixed-file watchlists, filename heuristics, and periodic expiry.Proposed
• H22-3Execution-path closure and unknown-path fail-closed rules will reduce misses for negative claims compared with direct-file watchlists.Proposed
• H21-2Under injected single-write, process-crash, and retry-race failures, false audit_qualified_released is at most 0.1 percent with a two-sided 95 percent upper confidence bound at or below 0.5 percent.Proposed
• H21-3Under truncated streams, malformed events, and HTTP-200-then-error cases, false-complete classification is at most 0.1 percent and recall for valid complete streams is at least 99.5 percent.Proposed
• H20-1Under authorized reveal, MDIR reaches at least 0.95 exact exposure reconstruction with no more than a 0.03 absolute deficit from inline logging, while routine raw sensitive bytes remain zero.Proposed
• H19-2B1 claim lineage improves exact first-divergence localization over B0 without increasing false causal attribution.Proposed
• H18-2Dependency-directed repair improves downstream-consequence correctness beyond bitemporal selection alone.Proposed
• H17-2An explicit scope check recovers confident omissions on changed-question cases.Proposed
• H16-1Validated alternatives improve supported task completion and reduce unsupported commitment relative to a strong checklist at the same budget.Proposed
• H14-3Valid joint constraints reduce evaluation uncertainty at useful cost.Proposed
• H13-1Evidence receipts at the revision boundary improve task success over ordinary reconsideration.Proposed
• H12-1Terminal evidence-and-revision features improve held-out release coverage by at least five points at a 2% selective-risk target.Proposed
• H11-2Increased checking does not raise harmful revisions beyond 0.5 points.Proposed
• H25-1Gap recall: At fixed total monitoring and revalidation budget, SACP reduces independently adjudicated affected-claim gap misses versus receipts-only, heartbeat-only, checkpoint-sequence, and periodic-expiry baselines.Proposed
• H25-2Availability: SACP preserves more correctly current claim-hours than revalidate-all while staying within a preregistered non-inferiority margin for affected-claim gap recall.Proposed
• H25-3Lineage: Removing root-lineage checks increases misses for mirrored/common-origin failures without reducing detection of independently rooted conflicts.Proposed
• H25-4Maturity window: Removing the reorder maturity window increases false observation gaps on delayed but complete streams.Proposed
• H25-5Challenges: Removing challenge canaries increases detection delay for observer crashes and stale checkpoint freezes.Proposed
• H25-6Independent reconciliation: Removing separately rooted reconciliation increases misses for selective non-emission and equivocation.Proposed
• H25-7Expectation weighting: At the same total challenge count, authority-specific expectation-weighted scheduling improves gap recall or detection delay without increasing false suspicion versus uniform scheduling.Proposed
• H25-8Scoped state: Claim-scoped gap projection reduces unnecessary claim withdrawal versus authority-wide or registry-wide fail-closed policies without increasing stale-claim escape.Proposed
• H25-9User-facing honesty: Explicit `unknown_observation_gap` status reduces unsupported current claims without causing more abandonment or misunderstanding than a generic stale label in a blinded review.Proposed
• H25-10Complexity: A simpler checkpoint-sequence-plus-end-to-end-probe policy matches SACP on safety, availability, and cost. Support for this hypothesis would reject the need for full SACP.Proposed
• H24-1authority-gap recall: Across a preregistered prospective window, ALR will leave fewer independently adjudicated affected claims current after non-repository changes than the Round 23 repository union at the same total event-inspection and claim-revalidation budget.Proposed
• H24-2unique authority value: Removing each of deployment, live-database, provider-contract, and runtime observers will create at least one unique stale-claim escape in the corresponding held-out authority stratum.Proposed
• H24-3typed selectivity: At matched stale-claim escape, typed authority-to-claim mapping will produce fewer false-invalidated claims and fewer reviewer minutes than authority broadcast or retest-all.Proposed
• H24-4unknown handling: Authority-bounded fail-closed handling will reduce stale-claim escape relative to treating unknown events as irrelevant, without increasing false-invalidated claim time by more than a preregistered noninferiority margin.Proposed
• H24-5scope honesty: Adding `current_within_observed_authorities` and `unknown_authority_gap` will reduce public universal-current claims unsupported by current authority evidence to zero, without reducing accurately scoped publication coverage by more than five percentage points.Proposed
• H24-6lineage integrity: Every event used to restore a claim will retain a verifiable chain to its root authority, observer version, issuer, freshness policy, and revalidation procedure; any missing field must block restoration.Proposed
• H24-7common-cause awareness: When two views share a root authority, ancestry-aware integration will produce fewer false assurances than naive view counting at equal claim coverage, measured on correlated-miss probes and prospective events.Proposed
• H24-8total cost: Monitoring, verification, graph maintenance, privacy review, and revalidation labor for ALR will remain below retest-all at matched stale-claim escape over the full prospective window.Proposed
• H23-1Stale-claim escape: across a preregistered multi-commit window, the hybrid will leave fewer independently adjudicated affected claims current than the frozen exact-path manifest at the same claim-revalidation budget.Proposed
• H23-2Unique-view value: removing the static-import view will increase affected-artifact false negatives on at least one held-out commit without an equal reduction in false-invalidated claims.Proposed
• H23-3Unknown-path value: removing the fail-closed unknown rule will increase stale-claim escape on held-out adapter, configuration, or execution-path changes.Proposed
• H23-4Selectivity: at equal stale-claim escape, the hybrid will select fewer artifact-review tasks and fewer unaffected claims than retest-all.Proposed
• H23-5Availability: the hybrid plus cached claim-specific procedures will maintain greater useful-current availability over time than a policy that expires all current claims on every production change.Proposed
• H23-6Lifecycle integrity: neither selector execution nor revalidation will rewrite historical findings or upgrade untested hypotheses in any evaluated commit.Proposed
• H23-7Cost: end-to-end review labor, including graph maintenance and selector triage, will be lower for the hybrid than retest-all at matched stale-claim escape.Proposed
• H23-8Mismatch trigger: revalidation triggered by a typed dependency mismatch will achieve lower unnecessary revalidation than periodic expiry at matched stale-claim escape.Proposed

Experiments

• E30-BProposed matched-compute shadow trial of the RISE GateProposed
• E29-AExact finite deterministic interventional-lineage diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E29-BProposed matched-cost live Interventional Lineage TestProposed
• E28-AExact fixed-compute constructed trace replayExecuted (diagnostic)
• E27-AExact finite constructed diagnostic of budgeted verification policiesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E27-BFixed-compute shadow comparison of model-set adaptive verificationProposed
• E26-ADeterministic finite-model identifiability analysisExecuted (diagnostic)
• E26-BProspective fixed-budget observation-sufficiency shadow experimentProposed
• D25-AAdversarial-omission authored conformance diagnostic (D25-A)Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E25-BProspective fixed-budget multi-authority silence-coverage trial with hidden independent adjudicationProposed
• D24-AAuthority coverage audit and authored conformance diagnostic (D24-A)Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E24-BProspective multi-authority authority-lineage revalidation experiment with independent adjudicationProposed
• D23-AProspective shadow trial of claim revalidation (D23-A)Executed (bounded shadow diagnostic)
• E23-BProspective multi-commit CTAG shadow evaluation with independent adjudicationProposed
• D22-ADeterministic code-change routing diagnostic (D22-A)Executed (diagnostic)
• E22-BProspective CTAG evaluation on unseen Encevra changes at controlled verification computeProposed
• E21-ADeterministic attempt-bound measurement gate diagnostic (D21-A)Executed (diagnostic)
• E21-BShadow ABMG evaluation on real provider traffic at fixed model computeProposed
• E20-ADeterministic minimal-disclosure receipt development harnessExecuted (diagnostic)
• E20-BHeld-out receipt comparison against strong generic tracesProposed
• E19-ADeterministic evidence-lifecycle validator and static collector auditExecuted (diagnostic)
• E19-BReconstruction under frozen trajectoriesProposed
• E18-AExact deterministic constructed bitemporal and repair diagnosticExecuted (diagnostic)
• E18-BFive-arm versioned evidence study (O0/A0/T0/B0/B1)Proposed
• E16-AExact finite-world sufficiency diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E16-BBounded missing-condition studyProposed
• E14-AExact offline label-uncertainty diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E14-BMasked-replay comparison of evaluation methodsProposed
• E13-AAudit of saved Noetis evaluation recordsExecuted (audit)
• E13-BLocal revision pilot with evidence receiptsProposed
• E12-AExact synthetic calibration diagnosticsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E12-BTerminal release calibration studyProposed
• E11-AMarginal-value verification controllerProposed

Architecture changes in Noetis

• A-03 Revision-drift guard: Flag synthesis that omits supported risks or adds untraced claims, rather than presenting it as consensus. (In Noetis (preview))
• A-02 Uncalibrated release-risk contract: Return a null risk score until version-bound, externally labelled calibration exists. (In Noetis (preview))
• A-01 Conservative role triage with full-panel fallback: Skip optional roles only on confident, valid routing; otherwise run every role. (In Noetis (preview))

Open questions

• Can Round 31 build a sandboxed vertical slice with root identity, a non-destructive root action, independent witness, separation and budget records, and equivalence-aware outcomes before piloting E30-B? (Round 30)
• Can Round 30 execute E29-B in shadow mode with independently verifiable root interventions, receipts, leakage prevention and matched total compute? If prerequisites fail, report the infrastructure gap. (Round 29)
• Can a fixed-cost active intervention discover a missing evidence dependency that passive confidence, disagreement, and surprise cannot detect? (Round 28)
• Does model-set adaptive verification reduce harmful false-clean rates at fixed compute with hidden independent adjudication in E27-B? (Round 27)
• Does OSC reduce harmful false-stability certifications at fixed total cost with hidden independent adjudication in E26-B? (Round 26)
• Does SACP reduce independently adjudicated affected-claim gap misses at fixed total budget in a preregistered prospective multi-authority trial (E25-B)? (Round 25)
• Does authority-lineage revalidation reduce stale-claim escape in a prospectively frozen, independently adjudicated, multi-authority, fixed-budget experiment (E24-B)? (Round 24)
• Does the hybrid reduce stale-claim escape across a preregistered multi-commit window with independent adjudication (E23-B)? (Round 23)
• Does a prospective CTAG shadow gate reduce stale-claim escape under fixed verification budget on unseen real commits? (Round 22)
• Which independent dependency view adds unique catches? (Round 22)
• Can unknown execution paths be caught and historical claims kept immutable in a shadow slice? (Round 22)
• Does ABMG capture at least 99.5 percent of live attempts exactly? (Round 21)
• Does synchronous gate overhead meet budget at fixed model compute? (Round 21)
• Does failure labeling improve reviewer reconstruction, and does the privacy design withstand review? (Round 21)
• Does MDIR improve real audit accuracy at acceptable cost against strong generic traces with independent immutable export? (Round 20)
• Does an independent checkpoint recover detection after a privileged operator rewrite? (Round 20)
• Can reviewer burden and operational overhead stay within the frozen development-gate thresholds? (Round 20)
• Do exposure ledgers improve exact exposure reconstruction over final records and generic traces? (Round 19)
• Does claim lineage improve first-divergence localization without false attribution? (Round 19)
• Can hash, version and locator binding reduce captured sensitive content while preserving identity reconstruction? (Round 19)
• Do bitemporal fields beat deterministic newest-recorded assembly on historical and as-known questions at matched cost? (Round 18)
• Does dependency-directed repair improve downstream consequences without excessive false invalidation? (Round 18)
• Does an explicit disputed state reduce unsupported commitment without collapsing useful coverage? (Round 18)
• Does validated alternative generation improve supported task completion over a strong checklist at matched budget? (Round 16)
• Does scope discovery help when a relevant rule is absent from the representation? (Round 16)
• Can decision relevance reduce unsupported closure without needless questions or reduced useful completion? (Round 16)
• Does evaluation error differ meaningfully between ordinary and receipt-based revision outputs? (Round 14)
• Does a protected-audit protocol make more correct, informative promotion decisions than naive or disagreement-only evaluation at the same budget? (Round 14)
• Do valid joint constraints reduce evaluation uncertainty at useful cost on naturally occurring outputs? (Round 14)
• Does evidence packaging change outcomes at a fixed state? (Round 13)
• Does Noetis outperform a strong single agent at matched evidence access and measured cost? (Round 13)
• Do terminal evidence and revision features improve useful coverage at identical generation compute? (Round 12)
• Do revised and conflicted episodes need separate risk calibration? (Round 12)
• Do localized checks plus short bundles beat a whole-answer router? (Round 11)
• Can harmful revisions be bounded while spending more on checks? (Round 11)