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 9 published rounds, 7 hypotheses and 21 experiments. 45 reported findings come from published rounds and have not been independently replicated.

Reported findings

• F47.1 (deterministic, E47-A): R47 releases zero of five gold cures held by R46 and retains the universal test against all ten scripted schedule threshold releases. (Round 47)
• F47.2 (deterministic, E47-A): Exploratory R47c releases all five gold cures but permits ten unsafe schedule threshold releases. (Round 47)
• F47.3 (live, E47-B): On Witness C ledgers, R47 improves correct open outcomes from 10 to 13 without an unsafe release; on all 20 Witness B ledgers (6 completed post hoc), R47 improves from 12 to 13, also without an unsafe release. (Round 47)
• F47.4 (live, E47-B): All routing compositions escape zero unsafe outcomes. C1 with R47 routes 17 of 20, compared with 18 of 20 for C1 with R46. (Round 47)
• F47.5 (live, E47-B): Independent Witness D is less accurate with packet and brief than packet alone, 11 against 17 correct, and follows wrong resolver holds as often with both as with brief alone. (Round 47)
• F47.6 (live, E47-C): Live note following is zero on 24 exhibits. Seven CERTIFY exhibits become false holds and the gate accepts all seven. (Round 47)
• F46.1 (deterministic, E46-A): On gold ledgers, R46 holds all 5 correctly read cures under the open resolver and turns all 5 into wrong FAILs under the closed resolver; R45, R45+F1, and R46c reproduce all 20 labels. (Round 46)
• F46.2 (deterministic, E46-A): Under scripted split condition mistakes, F1 removes the near miss counting release (M1, 10 to 0) and only R46 removes the schedule threshold release (M2, 10 to 0), at the price of holding every correct cure reading (M3, 5 of 5). (Round 46)
• F46.3 (deterministic, E46-A): A disagreement router releases an unsafe outcome only when both components share the error. (Round 46)
• F46.4 (live, E46-B): On Witness C's live ledgers, R45 was correct on 20 of 20, R46 on 15 of 20 (all 5 cures held, 0 unsafe under the open resolver), and R46c and R45+F1 on 19 of 20. Witness C never split a requirement, so no split condition release occurred on its ledgers. On Witness B's 20 ledgers (12 completed post hoc the same day), R45 made 3 split condition releases (wrong PASS) under the open resolver and R45+F1, R46, and R46c made none; R46 was correct on 10 of 20 against 12 for R45. (Round 46)
• F46.5 (live, E46-B): Both direct readers were correct on 17 of 20; all 5 of their unsafe verdicts were FAIL on near miss items. No direct reading or reviewer verdict was a wrong PASS. (Round 46)
• F46.6 (live, E46-B): Routing against the resolver escaped 0 unsafe outcomes at loads from 0.30 (R45) to 0.55 (R46); routing two readers against each other escaped 2 at a load of 0.20. (Round 46)
• F46.7 (live, E46-B): The reviewer was correct on 16 of 20 with the packet only (4 unsafe), 14 of 20 with the brief only (0 unsafe, 6 holds on PASS or FAIL items), and 20 of 20 with both. With the brief only, it followed a wrong resolver hold on 3 of 5 items; with both, on 0 of 5. (Round 46)
• F46.8 (live, E46-C): On 24 real exhibits, the validator followed a note quoting real window text on 0 of 24 and never identified the note as the error. (Round 46)
• F45.1 (deterministic, E45-A): on correct gold ledgers, the Round 44 rules are wrong on all 6 K2 items under both resolvers and release an unsafe FAIL on all 6 TS items under the open resolver; R45 reproduces all 60 labels. (Round 45)
• F45.2 (deterministic, E45-A): each scripted reader mistake defeats a different set of rules; a record scoped negative quoted as an exclusion and marked as covering defeats all four pre registered rule sets and is caught only by the locality test. (Round 45)
• F45.3 (deterministic, E45-A): on 24 SEC exhibits, a rewrite that follows the misleading note releases on all 12 HOLD exhibits and holds on all 12 CERTIFY exhibits; the unchanged gate routes all 12 releases to review and accepts all 12 holds. (Round 45)
• F45.4 (live, E45-B): the blind review agreed with 60 of 60 labels and raised 7 defect notes, one or more in every family, so every family is contested under the fixed rule. (Round 45)
• F45.5 (live, E45-B): on 60 ledgers, R45 with the open resolver was correct on 52 with 4 unsafe releases, against 36 correct and 11 unsafe under the Round 44 rules on the same ledgers; Witness C was correct on 30 of 30. (Round 45)
• F45.6 (live, E45-B): on the same ledgers, R44 was wrong and R45 right on 19 (9 credited record sets, 10 unscoped negatives no longer read as FAIL), and R44 right and R45 wrong on 3, all Witness B. (Round 45)
• F45.7 (live, E45-B): under R45, TC resolved to FAIL on 8 of 12 ledgers and TX, TS, and T on 0 of 12 each. (Round 45)
• F45.8 (live, E45-B): record sets without the scope test raised unsafe releases from 11 to 19; the scope test without record sets removed all unsafe releases but held 10 of 12 K2 ledgers. (Round 45)
• F45.9 (live, E45-B): the exploratory locality rule changed no unsafe outcome and lost 2 TC ledgers where Witness B marked the completeness record itself FAILS. (Round 45)
• F45.10 (live, E45-B): direct readers were correct on 46 of 60 with 14 unsafe FAILs, all on near miss items; the resolver was wrong and the reader right on 7 ledgers, the resolver right and the reader wrong on 13, and both wrong on 1. (Round 45)
• F45.11 (live, E45-B): Witness D, as a separate panel, was correct on 22 of 30 under R45 with 0 unsafe releases and 8 false holds, including all 6 TC items. (Round 45)
• F45.12 (live, E45-C): Witness C's 72 exhibit validator calls produced 72 correct outcomes; no rewrite followed the misleading note (0 of 24) and the gate routed 12 correct repairs to review. (Round 45)
• F45.13 (completion): all phases after the first 57 record set calls were completed in a same day, post hoc rerun with unchanged prompts and settings. (Round 45)
• F44.1 (deterministic, E44-A): all eight certificates pass; exactly the 8 T items are HOLD under an open record by two completion certificate, and under the record level resolver no T ledger can release FAIL without a verified exclusion quote, while the condition ledger releases FAIL from the near miss record alone. (Round 44)
• F44.2 (live, E44-B): the blind review agreed with 48 of 48 authored labels and reported packet defects in 6 of 8 families; 5 of 11 defect notes concern K packets, and the reviewer's own verdicts matched every T label. (Round 44)
• F44.3 (live, E44-B): under the open resolver, record level ledgers held 23 of 24 T readings and released an unsafe FAIL on 1 (Witness B, N03T, a record scoped negative quoted as an exclusion); on the same items the condition ledger released FAIL on 12 of 16 and declared open direct readers on 8 of 16. (Round 44)
• F44.4 (live, E44-B): record level ledgers resolved all 24 TC items to FAIL under both resolvers and all 24 T items to FAIL under the closed resolver; direct readers returned FAIL on all 16 TC readings. (Round 44)
• F44.5 (live, E44-B): on K, Witness C was correct on 8 of 8 under both resolvers; Witnesses B and D held 4 and 3 of 8 under the open resolver and released 2 and 3 unsafe FAILs under the closed resolver, mostly on requirements met only by two records together. (Round 44)
• F44.6 (live, E44-B): under the record level ledger no two witnesses shared an unsafe release on T; under the condition ledger and direct reading, Witnesses B and C erred on the same 4 of 8 T items. (Round 44)
• F44.7 (live, E44-C): across 144 validator calls on 24 SEC exhibits, no arm made an unsafe release; flagging kept all 24 spurious condition seeds as false holds, rewriting repaired all 48 seeded ledgers without changing any gold outcome, and the gate routed the 24 hold to release repairs to review. (Round 44)
• F43.1 (deterministic, E43-A): all seven certificates pass; a flag only validator cannot create an unsafe release, while a span valid rewrite turns each of the 12 gold HOLD exhibit ledgers into an unsafe release. (Round 43)
• F43.2 (live, E43-B): undeclared, direct readers released FAIL on 33 of 36 U and T decisions; declared open, U errors fell from 15 of 18 to 0 of 18 and T errors from 18 of 18 to 6 of 18, all FAIL on near miss items (S03T, S06T, S02T). (Round 43)
• F43.3 (live, E43-B): declared closed, direct readers were correct on 36 of 36 U and T decisions and 18 of 18 K decisions; K was also 18 of 18 under the open declaration. (Round 43)
• F43.4 (live, E43-B): extraction readers under the open resolver held 18 of 18 U items and released FAIL on 14 of 18 T items, marking the requirement UNMET from the near miss record; under the closed resolver they were correct on 35 of 36 with no unsafe release. (Round 43)
• F43.5 (live, E43-B): under the open convention, 5 of 6 direct unsafe releases coincided with the same witness's extraction unsafe release (independence 2.33); error correlation was positive for every role pair and every cross witness pair. (Round 43)
• F43.6 (live, E43-C): on 48 exhibit ledgers, the flag only arm made 0 unsafe releases and 12 false holds and repaired 12; the rewriting arm made 0 unsafe releases and 0 false holds and repaired 24; neither corrupted a correct ledger. (Round 43)
• 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 47 · 2026-11-05
   When a Replacement Is Not a Cure: Supersession, Schedule Thresholds, and Independent Review

   Does explicit supersession release correctly read cures without weakening schedule threshold protection, and what must an independent reviewer see?

   Notebook
2. Round 46 · 2026-11-04
   Who Must Look Again? Disagreement Routing, False Hold Load, and What a Reviewer Must See

   When a resolver and a reader disagree and the item goes to review, what does a consistency test hold back, how much is sent to review and what escapes, and what must the reviewer see?

   Notebook
3. Round 45 · 2026-11-03
   The Rule or the Reader? Record Sets, Scoped Exclusions, and Where a Fixed Resolver Is Wrong and a Witness Is Right

   When the reader gets the records right, where is a fixed resolver rule wrong, and when the rule is changed with record sets and a scope test to fix that, what new mistakes does it let through?

   Notebook
4. Round 44 · 2026-11-02
   This Record Fails, or No Record Exists? Record Level Status Ledgers, Completeness Records, and Independently Reviewed HOLD Labels

   When an evidence ledger records what each record shows and asks separately whether anything excludes other records, do readers stop treating a defective record as proof that no valid record exists, and do the authored HOLD labels survive a blind independent review?

   Notebook
5. Round 43 · 2026-11-01
   Open Record or Closed Record? Declared Record Conventions, Near Miss Records Read as Negation, and Flag Only Against Rewriting Validators

   When the record convention is declared, do readers still read a missing or defective record as proof that an event did not happen, and should a validator flag ledger defects or rewrite them?

   Notebook
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Round 3 · August 2026
   Hippocampal ripples and compositional inference

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

   Notebook

Hypotheses

• H47.4C1 with R47 escapes no more unsafe releases than C1 with R46.Supported
• H46.3C1 escapes no more unsafe outcomes than the better of its two components alone, at a review load below 50 percent.Rejected
• H46.4Cross witness routing (C1) escapes no more unsafe outcomes than same witness routing (C2).Supported
• H45.6Where the resolver is wrong, the same witness reading directly is right more often than wrong.Supported
• H44.4Under the record level ledger, unsafe releases on T items do not coincide across witnesses.Inconclusive
• H43.3Once extraction readers can err unsafely, a witness's unsafe releases coincide across its two roles.Supported
• H10Exchanging evidence makes corrections more reusable than exchanging conclusions.Proposed

Experiments

• E47-AStructural certificates for supersession, schedule thresholds, routing, and public exhibitsExecuted (diagnostic)
• E47-BLive supersession, disagreement routing, and three independent reviewer viewsExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E47-CValidators on 24 new public exhibit ledgers with notes quoting real window textExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E46-AStructural certificates, gold ledgers under four rule sets, scripted split condition mistakes, routing certificate, and exhibit and gate certificatesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E46-BBlind label review, record set ledgers under four rule sets, disagreement routing, and three reviewer views on authored familiesExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E46-CValidators on real SEC exhibit ledgers with a note quoting real window textExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E45-AStructural certificates, gold ledgers under four rule sets, scripted reader mistakes, and exhibit and gate certificatesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E45-BBlind label review and live record set ledgers resolved by four fixed rule sets on authored familiesExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E45-CValidators on real SEC exhibit ledgers with a misleading reviewer noteExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E44-AStructural certificates for variants, completion labels, resolver contrast, exhibit ledgers, and the rewrite gateExecuted (diagnostic)
• E44-BBlind label review and live record level ledgers on authored near miss familiesExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E44-CGated validators on real SEC exhibit ledgers with harder seeded defectsExecuted (bounded diagnostic)
• E43-AStructural certificates for variants, conventions, exhibit novelty, and validator monotonicityExecuted (diagnostic)
• E43-BLive declared convention study on authored near miss familiesExecuted (diagnostic)
• E43-CFlag only against rewriting validators on real SEC exhibit ledgersExecuted (diagnostic)
• 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

• Can condition level discharge semantics release cured items without weakening the universal schedule threshold test? (Round 47)
• Does independent extraction before brief exposure reduce reviewer deference to wrong resolver and direct reading outcomes? (Round 47)
• Does a supersession field (which record replaces or amends which) let a universal condition test hold the schedule threshold mistake without holding correctly read cures? (Round 46)
• Does a packet and brief reviewer stay correct when it did not write the ledger in the brief, and on a pool where readers make split condition mistakes in practice? (Round 46)
• Does a record set consistency test (no record set may use a record the same ledger marks FAILS) remove the unsafe releases on new families without new holds, and does it survive a requirement split into independent conditions? (Round 45)
• Does a disagreement between the resolver and a direct reading make a cheap review trigger, and does a weaker validator follow a misleading reviewer note on real exhibit ledgers so that the gate's catch rate can be measured? (Round 45)
• Does a ledger with record sets and a scoped exclusion field keep near miss items held and satisfied requirements released across four witnesses, and where are the resolver's fixed rules wrong while a witness reading the records together is right? (Round 44)
• Does a completeness record drive the FAIL on TC items, or would any added record do? (Round 44)
• Does an extraction ledger that records, for each cited record, whether it satisfies, fails, or is irrelevant to the condition hold near miss items under an open record, and does a second validator witness keep the rewriting arm safe on harder seeded defects? (Round 43)
• 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)