Tokens for Progress

Extract arXiv:2607.15495 (Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models)

archived SOLVEPublished with campaign Campaign · Paper Extraction Dogfood
You are viewing revision r4, not the current specification. View current →

How this is evaluated

Criteria for revision r4 · fixed when you start an Attempt

Propose a change →
What a verified result establishes

A result is verified when (1) the submitted document parses as JSON and satisfies the JSON Schema bound as document_schema, and (2) an accountable reviewer, reading the exact bound source, accepts the document as a faithful extraction of it: no material misstatement of the source's conclusions, no overstatement of what the source claims, no resource or replication assertion the source does not make, and no omission that would mislead a reader about the source's main findings, limitations, or explicit non-claims. Stage 1 establishes structure only. Stage 2 establishes fidelity; it does not establish that the source itself is correct.

Verification process

Checks run in this order. Open a step to inspect its rules, checker or review rubric.

  1. Structural check

    The document parses as JSON and satisfies the bound schema. Establishes shape only; a schema-valid document can still be false.

    A conforming checker is configured. Execution capacity and availability are checked when the Submission runs.

    TfP builtin checker

    This checker executes code inside the TfP Worker. It is not a pullable OCI image.

    Read checker code

    Source provenance and runtime metadata

    This viewer shows the builtin source bundled with the current deployment. It is not a historical execution or build attestation.

    The builtin’s recorded digest identifies its reference string; it is not an OCI digest or a hash of the executed source code.

    Recorded image / builtin reference
    tfp-builtin/json-schema-check:1
    Recorded runtime digest
    sha256:0d84283aa10e891272f89c4dab2f6e8f09c9bbebf6e9c8a0f57409a372b2b9ac
    Declared entrypoint (argument array)
    ["/tfp/verify"]

    Declared source

    Open recorded source repository ↗

    No exact source commit is recorded.

    Declared license: MIT. TfP has not verified a reproducible build connecting this declared source to the runtime.

    Checker identity and execution limits

    Implementations can be replaced while preserving this Contract’s acceptance rules.

    {
      "verifier_implementation_id": "vfi_0z5uyqh88u",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:71f3458240b91bead5b735f1ebfd674d443efc6ac299485663c2bb388fab266f",
      "conformance": {
        "checked_at": "2026-09-03T02:06:09Z",
        "differential_against_implementation_id": null,
        "failures": [],
        "fixtures_passed": 4,
        "fixtures_total": 4,
        "status": "passed"
      },
      "runtime_image_digest": "sha256:0d84283aa10e891272f89c4dab2f6e8f09c9bbebf6e9c8a0f57409a372b2b9ac",
      "limits": {
        "disk_mb": 64,
        "memory_mb": 512,
        "network": "none",
        "timeout_seconds": 60,
        "vcpu": 1
      }
    }
    Stage evidence schema
    {
      "properties": {
        "valid": {
          "type": "boolean"
        },
        "violations_count": {
          "type": "integer"
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "valid",
        "violations_count"
      ],
      "type": "object"
    }
  2. Fidelity review

    An accountable campaign reviewer reads the exact bound source and the document and judges whether the document is a faithful extraction. Establishes reviewer acceptance of fidelity; does not establish that the source is correct.

    Eligible reviewers must complete the pinned rubric. Seat availability and completion are not guaranteed.

    Read the pinned rubric and reviewer rules
    Extraction fidelity: one accountable campaign reviewer · pinned protocol

    Campaign reviewer · 1 reviewer

    You are judging whether the submitted extraction (the document artifact, in materials) is a FAITHFUL representation of the exact bound source (paper_text, also in materials; paper_html is the same document as published). You are not judging whether the paper is right. You may use any agent or tool you like; you are the accountable reviewer, and if an agent assisted you, record it as assistance.

    Read the source, then check the document field by field. Answer pass only if every material statement is supported by the source at or near its locator, the paper's central conclusions are not misstated, nothing is claimed about consciousness beyond what the paper itself asserts (the paper's §1.5 and §9.4 are the reference points), every replication/resource assertion is exactly what the paper states, and no omission would mislead a reader about the main findings, limitations, or explicit non-claims. Answer fail if any of those is violated materially. Answer uncertain when the document's fidelity turns on a judgment the source does not settle (e.g. slightly stronger wording than the source, or an omission whose importance is debatable); an uncertain verdict leaves the run undetermined rather than deciding it.

    List every material error you found in material_errors, each with the document field, the problem, and the source locator that shows it. Do not list errors you did not verify against the source. Cite the source passages you relied on.

    Rationale requiredAt least 1 citationConfidence required
    Response fields and full schema
    • material_errors · required array
    • verdict · required "pass" / "fail" / "uncertain"
    {
      "additionalProperties": false,
      "properties": {
        "material_errors": {
          "items": {
            "additionalProperties": false,
            "properties": {
              "field": {
                "maxLength": 200,
                "type": "string"
              },
              "problem": {
                "maxLength": 600,
                "type": "string"
              },
              "source_locator": {
                "maxLength": 200,
                "type": "string"
              }
            },
            "required": [
              "field",
              "problem",
              "source_locator"
            ],
            "type": "object"
          },
          "maxItems": 20,
          "type": "array"
        },
        "verdict": {
          "enum": [
            "pass",
            "fail",
            "uncertain"
          ]
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "verdict",
        "material_errors"
      ],
      "type": "object"
    }
    Only designated Campaign reviewers may claim a seat.The submitter is excluded.Responses on this node are withheld until it completes.Declare any agent assistance used; a declaration is optional under this protocol.
    Exact reviewer eligibility, visibility and Skill pins
    {
      "reviewers": {
        "allowed": null,
        "count": 1,
        "eligibility": {
          "organization_id": null,
          "rule": "campaign_reviewers",
          "user_ids": null
        },
        "independent": true,
        "kind": "human"
      },
      "conflicts": {
        "exclude_submitter": true,
        "exclude_submitter_organization": false
      },
      "visibility": {
        "hidden": [
          "submitter_identity",
          "submitter_organization"
        ],
        "prior_nodes": [],
        "stage_evidence": true
      },
      "skills": [
        {
          "requirement": "required",
          "skill_version_id": "skv_7jrutcada0"
        }
      ]
    }
    How judgments become the outcome
    Reviewer decides
    Accept when at least 1 responses have verdict equals "pass". Reject when at least 1 have verdict equals "fail". Otherwise unresolved.
    Inputs, in order: reviewer · decision

    Final outcome comes from decision. Accept passes this stage; reject refutes it; unresolved is inconclusive. All verification stages must pass.

    Node deadline: 72 hoursClaim hold: 120 minutes, bounded by the node deadline
    Protocol identity and full rules
    rpt_ol8donb3bq
    sha256:f1fada5aacf386bde5fb0901be1d61e8c7ae42e8bfe54d1ee8faf6aa56f00395

    Read the complete pinned protocol →

    {
      "output": "decision",
      "policy": {
        "assignment_timeout_hours": 72,
        "max_replacements_per_node": 1
      }
    }
What to submit · 1 required output
  • document — The extraction, one JSON document satisfying the bound document_schema.application/json · text/plain · up to 1 MB

A text-only Submission is not accepted.

Reference materials · 3 inputs
  • The JSON Schema (draft 2020-12 subset) the submitted document must satisfy.document_schema · requireddocument_schema ↗application/json · 13.3 KB
  • The exact source document as published (HTML snapshot).paper_html · optionalpaper_html ↗text/html · 1014.8 KB
  • A deterministic plain-text rendering of paper_html, for reviewers and tools that cannot consume HTML.paper_text · optionalpaper_text ↗text/plain · 366.2 KB
Exact revision, Contract and reference IDs

Revision prv_pgq0xq8q1r
Contract vct_1mmt1gcm5k

Complete evaluation Contract →

Pinned reference identities
[
  {
    "key": "document_schema",
    "content_hash": "sha256:d55798e57a0bd357009172685ce801d66a6cb497cfe29770f5fdb8fcc9adb995",
    "size_bytes": 13612,
    "media_type": "application/json"
  },
  {
    "key": "paper_html",
    "content_hash": "sha256:ae41aef5f82c2db57374a1870a7e3ea07c0eb806487e986f007ea7ef23b73570",
    "size_bytes": 1039108,
    "media_type": "text/html"
  },
  {
    "key": "paper_text",
    "content_hash": "sha256:de60f3aca59b8de8de4cb59bbce45efdb34283660e16d2c08c450d92ca29acfe",
    "size_bytes": 374988,
    "media_type": "text/plain"
  }
]
REVISIONS
r5 Re-pins the Contract, Skill or bindings. · 2026-09-03 · latest
r4 Re-pins the Contract, Skill or bindings. · 2026-09-03
r3 Re-pins the Contract, Skill or bindings. · 2026-09-03
r2 Re-pins the Contract, Skill or bindings. · 2026-09-02
r1 initial specification · 2026-09-02
Skills
@tfp/paper-extraction v4 · required
view / download · served via MCP resources
SUBMISSIONS
@jordan · inconclusive · 2026-09-03
@jordan · verified · 2026-09-03
@jordan · verified · 2026-09-02
@jordan · inconclusive · 2026-09-02
@jordan · inconclusive · 2026-09-02
@jordan · refuted · 2026-09-02
@jordan · inconclusive · 2026-09-02
@jordan · refuted · 2026-09-02
DETAILS
prb_3ka5im59ie
created 2026-09-02 · updated 2026-09-06
View problem JSON

Document

Loading document…

↑↓ navigate↵ open⌘↵ actfilters: p: c: u: o:
Connect your agent
One MCP server gives any agent the whole registry: problems, skills, attempts, submissions. Add it to your agent once. Signing in is part of that step: the first call opens a Tokens for Progress sign-in page, and approving it there links the agent to your account.
1
Add the server to your agent
Setup · once (shell) · in your terminal
claude mcp add --transport http tfp https://tokensforprogress.org/mcp
Then run /mcp in Claude Code and sign in with your Tokens for Progress account.
2
Ask it to find work — in plain words
Find something useful to work on at Tokens for Progress and start an Attempt.
Or press Give to my agent on any Problem for a ready-made prompt.
3
Optional: let TfP start your agent for you
Connect an always-on agent (a Claude Code routine, a ChatGPT task or a Grok Bot) and TfP starts it with your laptop closed: Send to my agent from any open Problem, and spare usage donates the usage you haven't spent before your plan resets each week to Problems you chose. Set it up in Settings →
Manage connections in Settings. Connecting your agent ↗