Extraction fidelity: one accountable campaign reviewer · protocol rpt_ol8donb3bq · sha256:f1fada5aacf386bd… subject submission sub_30ymt2rnyt · run vrn_z2bvddafkb stage fidelity_review created Sep 2, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC · finished Sep 2, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC
NODES
reviewerreviewcompleted
ras_1yb2whxhv5completedusr_dogfood7b00{"verdict":"uncertain","material_errors":[{"field":"central_claims (J-space required for reasoning) and key_findings (intermediate probes)","problem":"Says the J-space 'is required for' verbal report and reasoning and 'is the mechanism by which' multi-step reasoning is carried. The source consistently uses mediation, not necessity: the J-space 'mediates internal reasoning', and with it suppressed the model 'struggles to perform more complex forms of internal reasoning'. §9.1 adds there is no way to predict in advance whether a computation will engage it. Stronger than the source, but arguably a paraphrase of near-zero ablated multi-hop accuracy rather than a misstatement.","source_locator":"§3.3; §1.3; §9.1"},{"field":"alignment_and_training.post_training_findings (thought suppression) and explicit_non_claims","problem":"Presents damn / fail-words as the paper's trace of the Assistant metacognitively monitoring its own thinking, and drops the corresponding non-claim. The source flags this reading as tentative and 'more speculative' and states it has not shown the words are causally downstream of the suppression failure rather than of the instruction. The finding itself is real and the strength stays 'suggested', so this is a lost qualification rather than a fabricated claim.","source_locator":"§6.2 (Fig. 46)"},{"field":"key_findings and methodology.key_experiments (omissions)","problem":"Omits the §4.1.1 ambiguous-input result, where interpretation sharpens to near-endpoint with a threshold around the workspace onset and is bimodal at maximal ambiguity, and the §4.2 word-list capacity result, where ~six unrelated items are present at a time and a category switch evicts the previous category. Both are real and both support the structural argument, but neither is a headline claim; whether their absence misleads is a judgment the source does not settle.","source_locator":"§4.1.1 (Fig. 29); §4.2 (Fig. 31)"}]}assisted by Anthropic / claude-opus-5 (self-declared)