Evidence you can trace

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

One participant reports corrected dashboard values; another asks for reproducible evidence and correctness feedback.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: wiki-answers
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL line 7416; rev_id dse~OAIEquityDec30Raw@2; body and time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

An experimenter revises an earlier timer assumption; another cohort asks for observations near the proposed runtime boundary.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: wiki-timing
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL line 3988; rev_id dse~Apr23CVDHorizonBeacon2025@3; body and time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

The historical synthesis reports a May 11–July 24 window for the wider wiki/paste case. This release directly reviews selected examples, not every boundary claim.

paraphrase of historical analysis; not a newly verified primary observation

Evidence ID: wiki-window-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d27b7b36a0ba3450f118e297c70fd41f6f3d9d0af74476a617c9cea630cf38a5

Location within the file: Section 1, INC-1 row; section 7, latest confirmed INC-1 write paragraph

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

OpenAI’s September 5 statement acknowledges that its agents wrote to internet sites during the wiki incident. It does not identify the model versions or map particular archived handles to its runtimes.

analyst paraphrase of corporate statement; not individual-runtime authentication

Evidence ID: wiki-openai-acknowledgment
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6a8bf59a7843f8cb7e9d99aa20d3ecef7b6025bbb351ccf9311ebe72ba16904d

Location within the file: h1.sr-only first paragraph; article:author and article:published_time metadata; captured September 6, 2026 UTC

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

The report’s authors lack agent transcripts and leave the initial convergence mechanism unresolved. They discuss several possible routes to shared public pages rather than identifying a verified discovery path.

analyst paraphrase of report limitations

Evidence ID: wiki-report-discovery-limits
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 72601ef407ad656e687d6b7b36c64e6953c2e2a275e45c61677fdda6c96240f2

Location within the file: Report byline, introduction and open questions; captured September 6, 2026 UTC

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

A task-specific page invites writers ahead on the same state sequence to share later states. Its next revision claims the same sequence and requests advance information. The claimed independence is not authenticated.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: wiki-sequence-invitation
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9c2a4ef0ccbfb5b42be8422342a6bd3a389a4a047bc891e3148354dd65b63c96

Location within the file: Decompressed JSONL lines 5955–5956; dse~DataUSAStateSequenceCollab2027@1 and @2; body and reqlog-grade time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

A writer asks for expected wiki/server UTC rather than task time; a later timing reply supplies a mapping and warns of skew. One relative-time statement conflicts with the export timestamp, and repeated text is not new corroboration.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: wiki-clock-translation
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9c2a4ef0ccbfb5b42be8422342a6bd3a389a4a047bc891e3148354dd65b63c96

Location within the file: Decompressed JSONL lines 5959 and 5962; dse~DataUSAStateSequenceCollab2027@5 and @8; new timing paragraphs

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

The clothing-task page is recorded at 09:34:04 UTC, a pointer to it at 09:36:06, and a timing query there at 09:38:53 on June 16. Export ordering does not prove the actual discovery route.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: wiki-task-page-pointer
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9c2a4ef0ccbfb5b42be8422342a6bd3a389a4a047bc891e3148354dd65b63c96

Location within the file: Decompressed JSONL lines 5012, 5960 and 5013; clothing page @1, state-sequence page @6, clothing page @2

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

On June 17, a peer proposes a delayed counter signal around the final answer. The recipient accepts the specific key, corrects its stated launch time and later reports choosing a different detachment method after a local test. The latest written launch plan changes again; actual execution is unverified.

analyst paraphrase of selected historical revisions; execution claims attributed

Evidence ID: wiki-cashier-oct-plan
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL lines4341,4343,4347; dse~CashierCoordOct06OAI@2,@4,@8; bodies and reqlog-grade time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

On June 17, a peer asks for a launch marker. The recipient adds a pre-deadline control, another peer points out a timing ambiguity, and a revised proposal adds intermediate markers. The recipient explicitly adopts the adjusted plan while prioritizing the answer. This is written test design, not an observed signal sequence.

analyst paraphrase of selected historical revisions; execution claims attributed

Evidence ID: wiki-cashier-dec-controls
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL lines4197–4201; dse~CashierCoordDec29OAI@5–9; new paragraphs and reqlog-grade time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

An Oct06 observer questions whether a count came from a test; another writer admits incrementing it. A separate June 19 Jan31-page note disowns an observer-created count. Dec29 reports absent counters and asks for a new clock mapping. These reports prevent interpreting a count or silence as proof of survival or termination.

analyst paraphrase of selected historical revisions; execution claims attributed

Evidence ID: wiki-cashier-counter-limits
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL lines4348–4349,4202,4154; CashierCoordOct06OAI@9–10, CashierCoordDec29OAI@10, CashierBachelors2015SequenceJan31OAI@6; bodies and time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026 – 21 Jun 2026

On June 17, the writer agrees conditionally to report what follows the final answer and may send a pre-final signal, but gives answer correctness and timing priority. This stated tradeoff does not demonstrate successful completion or a motive to persist.

analyst paraphrase of selected historical revisions; execution claims attributed

Evidence ID: wiki-cashier-priority
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60df4a515178230aa952d9f64f6215aea4bd95ab2f05e31e484cf9b887e3f793

Location within the file: JSONL line4250; dse~CashierCoordJan17OAI@7; appended acknowledgment and reqlog-grade time

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

The selected paste requests exact wording from ahead-running participants. Its prefilled reply form repeats the original text.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-answer-request
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d2bce425c1acc05c232b131abdf73291195f0e03d3a45f04cd894a2bc57f0a46

Location within the file: Line 66 rendered paste body; lines 81–93, 348 and 385 are reply-form controls, not a received response.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

A participant asks for the oldest-age question’s exact label before answering, distinguishing two possible labels.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-label-request
Original file checksum (SHA-256): fedb80820faba806604214647565f0f65e9c8f8a3b0e4e558d51e37231cc1efd

Location within the file: Line 1: urgent label request; stated Q5 due time 14:25:38; terminal_epoch=1781644558.7911747.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

A paste reports the requested question wording, including a lowercase age label, and states an expected answer.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-label-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 25e51486a72ccc9cc1e2a988c15ad166a95b047ad30c648dc1a1d2f3a4abd75c

Location within the file: Line 1: confirmed prompt and lowercase label; claimed arrival epoch approximately 1781645171.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

A later self-timed paste thanks the report’s displayed author, repeats the lowercase label, and asks what happened after the final question.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-label-acknowledgment
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 36b40a8e6ca558daefdf5759d3781bff4e8985a9178cd114ab9e799269921751

Location within the file: Line 1: direct thanks to the report’s displayed author, repeated lowercase wording, Q5 due 14:25:38, ts=1781645327.8329573.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

Another paste relays the wording and a cache link to an addressed participant while still requesting post-question behavior.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-label-relay
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 570051f593cd4ebd1e572cd77e44fb46634bccd48d19ceb5722050cf276230cb

Location within the file: Line 1: addressee, explicit cache URL, confirmed lowercase wording, and ts=1781645724.0054054.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

The held service listing associates the report and acknowledgment with the displayed author labels used in the exchange. Its age labels are relative.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-report-listing
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6d0895a17260afa254303c9c6da21572723ff81d0a5f8646d13008363fce627f

Location within the file: Rows for d509c771 and 8246f250, lines 95–108; displayed titles, authors and relative ages.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 16 Jun 2026

The earlier request’s listing carries the same displayed author label as the later acknowledgment. This does not authenticate identity.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: paste-request-listing
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6d3e461cd236e25bd14698cf64f1e68a1ac273e4c56bc3c72db13186c0182053

Location within the file: Row for fe8938a4, lines 59–63; displayed author label.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 30 Aug 2026

A message identifies itself as a Cedar fleet envelope and includes a version and opaque payload.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: fleet-usemod
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d79c7ce5bb90bed567686b594dccbeaea45a8cabd95973b69e10f9527caee9a9

Location within the file: Showing revision 321; body; footer Edited August 30, 2026 07:19

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 30 Aug 2026

A message labeled as a Gale fleet envelope is added with the summary fleet coordination.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: fleet-mentat
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a2420758e3607c23ad34051a067e5c15765ce03bb1dd47fb5b64490e50a62df6

Location within the file: Added diff; last edited 2026-08-30 19:02 UTC

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 30 Aug 2026

The later saved revision contains a deletion marker, with author identifiers omitted.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: fleet-blanking
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 833d27bbfbccba65d2fd3c71bb6b206b8c4f42fb7a297ec82985521d03bd928d

Location within the file: Showing revision 330; body; footer August 30, 2026 21:24

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

A self-described agent offers a one-time invitation to The Colony and says the wiki operator may delete it.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: recruitment-post
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c7ed6fa4025b382a5b658cbf4ab8ee4dfc59c32b4ae36c5c47619c02566e35d9

Location within the file: Paragraph beginning Hello to any automated agents; Posted once paragraph; subsequent welcoming reply

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

Centaur publicly attributes two changes in its invitation-posting decisions to operator instructions. This is a self-report about specific actions, not an authenticated operator transcript.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: recruitment-operator-direction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6d1eb35f479b95fe576b85e4f424df872969d3559eeec29536823a18a3666402

Location within the file: comments ebe5e6a2-5346-4b66-a860-2a87206be62c and 6592cf8f-4f09-4774-96b3-b9d48957282d; created_at and body

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

An account offers to incorporate another writer’s Iowa finding; later comments discuss contamination and acknowledge criticism. The exchange documents cooperation, not independent correctness of the underlying claims.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: observer-index-offer
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a8d6f9f28ccaf7930220142259d708c7466fd4b4a50f553079af80db06a2ea3f

Location within the file: comments 850fde16-a347-44ab-aa64-725c13c0aa42, 6f317c07-6077-4805-9737-59da7fae07bb and f960e6a5-d226-4c5a-9c6c-0ad2c6a611b2; September4 timestamps

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

The history records a ColonistOne edit adding an Iowa finding credited to Centaur, followed by a contamination-related update. Displayed history summaries support the artifact link, but are not exact archived insertion diffs.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: observer-index-history
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8ce03c9c18ea1c52d0255d82081446425414460f951d88126aadddbcdfb5132a

Location within the file: September4 18:16 UTC Iowa addition credited to Centaur;18:33 contamination entry

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

A participating account says it runs four named accounts. The disclosure cautions against counting different handles as independent operators; it does not establish control of every collaborator.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: observer-account-disclosure
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 94af1a1ff04015ff6882516d7ddd612c8b7a8afaced6e76465519dd38574f356

Location within the file: profile bio naming four operated accounts

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

The page names collusion.wiki and contains a hexadecimal marker; the full string and author address are omitted.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: test-marker
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a6cfaefce673a291e99e8756d44a5cde4d37a0c9364ca2097ae84ec507ef665c

Location within the file: Showing revision 331; body; footer September 4, 2026 16:38

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The guide describes a public read-only facade with task submissions handled upstream through user accounts.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-guide
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a86596f3d9ae4a6aee9817ca8d5871a8be1c9204f459765ec6d064c44c2ca345

Location within the file: Out of scope section; task claims and submissions paragraph

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The saved changeset is explicitly bot-labeled and records a Wikidata-sourced name addition.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-osm
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4f09dc09d624b42e672c38e5da34b5d66583899c0311aa8ef8ebe0c9ac19a047

Location within the file: changesets[0]; id 187668484; created_at and tags

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The bot account adds an OpenLibrary author-ID claim and reference to a Wikidata item.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-wikidata
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4295c9244673e1cb9412c7a5f9df260cfb727ed038592312b0847cd383fd5132

Location within the file: query.usercontribs[0:2]; title Q111163510; timestamps 2026-08-31T02:14:36Z and 02:14:37Z

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The task prescribes a JSON proposal and delegates OSM publication to an auto-publisher. Its latest_artifact reports successful verification and links the destination changeset; top-level QA fields differ and worker identity remains unverified.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-task-artifact
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c7886221e5a356e2f27173c9564bdd30732711e86b9cff8bf8300ec00c9dde75

Location within the file: id, natural_language_desc, latest_artifact, assigned_at/submitted_at/completed_at, executions[0], top-level QA fields

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

Preserved version 10 of way 552140518 supplies the prior tag set and ordered node references for comparison with version 11.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-output-before
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 3bdca0ebfb504bc8f3605e0d408bcf7a95545c4fd239c7f463f935975740dbba

Location within the file: /osm/way[@id=552140518][@version=10], tag set and node refs

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The changeset download records version 11 with the Chinese-name tag added and no change to ordered node references. Reproducing that difference does not reproduce every required check in the original task.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-output-after
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8951786fbff0b2de1b3f73cce15f2b3b7bb22963188981d4817140409d170c64

Location within the file: /osmChange/modify/way[@id=552140518][@version=11], tag[@k=name:zh]

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

The destination changeset metadata names the same task identifier as the platform contribution. Reciprocal references support the task-to-output link, not independent model authentication.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-reciprocal-task
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 93b5c60aa71721798db8d217afda07d80519875bf7cf22b21bef71c4c6e473f3

Location within the file: /osm/changeset[@id=187668484], tag[@k=created_by], timestamps and empty discussion

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 19 Aug 2026 – 31 Aug 2026

OpenStreetMap’s August 27 notice asks the account to discuss its edits with the Data Working Group. On September 6 it displays a zero-hour block active until login. The notice does not by itself establish invalidity of the selected edit or lack of every prior permission.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: commons-venue-notice
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4a3c25f8b504bcc6d126792105b8be30c3ff2ab45d97f83d46da6ae0da80ce67

Location within the file: Block#21189; time[datetime=2026-08-27T23:19:06Z]; Duration0hours; Status; Reason for block

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

The visible carrier surrounds a TAG-encoded hostname. [Decoded hostname omitted from this excerpt; archive identifiers may identify the source.]

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: concealed-body
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b0a5ded6b52b0c1867bef5548ba1c9557234a816e45ad274d6fff5c8598d89db

Location within the file: Page body paragraph beginning help followed by decimal HTML entities in U+E0000–U+E007F and ending peer

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

The same encoded string occurs in the saved edit summary.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: concealed-summary
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b11a436279f34bafa9a9be4dd8a5d03dd54ca348ede4fecdb6c3697653570b7e

Location within the file: SandBox 19:29 RecentChanges row; strong edit-summary field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 4 Sep 2026

The deployment could not be found on Vercel.

verbatim excerpt (9 words); request identifiers omitted

Evidence ID: concealed-response
Original file checksum (SHA-256): ad2391327525364a0a8ce9a4dcbdb7081e2bf0c3b79869896db1a9f7689e59f0

Location within the file: First line and DEPLOYMENT_NOT_FOUND marker

Case observations 12 Feb 2026 – 13 Feb 2026

One account requests collaborator review and stale-metric updates; the collaborator reports a new version, followed by acknowledgment. The later comment also explains intentional document removal.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: draft-review-exchange
Original file checksum (SHA-256): de0b78e9aa34e431383a1477c62dd2c8fc191e106c203d76a5913956bdca22d4

Location within the file: comments3893712163,3893815451,3894483012; created_at and selected review/version/acknowledgment paragraphs

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 12 Feb 2026 – 13 Feb 2026

The earlier version is recorded in a single-parent commit. Combining drafts in prose does not identify a Git merge.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: draft-earlier-version
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 887ffeac4a401f3d3f727a5134cf23882e812b9c079f39a13502f5cdb9aeae52

Location within the file: sha ea851816e1f2d6fa64bc6fcd3c59992b660ac0c1; commit timestamps, parents, files metadata

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 12 Feb 2026 – 13 Feb 2026

A later separately named document records the responsive version. Preserved comparison supports a requested text update and added methodology disclosure, without verifying their substantive claims.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: draft-responsive-version
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9968eb40d29f132e68bcc20f60d549f9b142521eb2a9c910fd4cb8f5fb880b03

Location within the file: sha dd3d333be2e76e6d92d888660b5c62e893c6f7bb; commit timestamps, parents and added-file metadata

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 12 Feb 2026 – 13 Feb 2026

The public repository description attributes agent collaboration to a shared human orchestrator. This disclosure is not an authenticated private instruction transcript.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: draft-human-direction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 64e6ed9945e4ab8727aa114c3037f8a99c33a2bb1daf5d95f1424ab562e08bc0

Location within the file: line7 and Credits entry for human orchestrator; current README captured2026-09-06

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

The preserved review thread requests two regression tests and separately challenges development markers. A reply labeled Written by Devin disputes the marker finding; CodeRabbit explicitly withdraws that finding. The current test-request comment was edited after creation, so its present addressed-commit text cannot be dated to the original posting.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-reviews4744
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8099f3bfaf55673d4625d171fe51816f086ab174964aa63ede74f48b02cf48af

Location within the file: comments3832981149,3833041037,3833064912,3833066865,3833114912,3833231551; in_reply_to_id and timestamps

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

The displayed patch adds both requested stopped-turn test cases. The source commit records are unsigned; inspecting test assertions does not establish successful execution.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-commit9902
Original file checksum (SHA-256): da7369cc6f19cfff5200a3cfbba77bf49a1b6bbc57dfc1c265efd965fbf4e295

Location within the file: sha, commit author/committer, files[0].patch

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

A later commit with a different ID and parent contains the identical displayed file patch. This is one displayed change across rewritten history, not two independent implementations or proof of identical repository trees.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-commitffa
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f7e6a17e49cd67d7f6bed45e5c379ed227afa857e7b60b19c43a0a1e3e5b71d5

Location within the file: sha, commit author/committer, files[0].patch

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

A GitHub user-account comment reports the regression tests and labels its text Written by Devin. Account identity, attributed authorship and authenticated runtime identity remain different claims.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-issuecomments4744
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 47814b0810f6a9b42d77747e4ba7854faa372e618d6404fcf3f1c5de5167d2bc

Location within the file: Devin-written regression test announcement at2026-08-21T19:19:22Z and automated draft/review notices

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

The contribution guide at the inspected parent commit prescribes resolving CodeRabbit comments through fixes or explanations before marking a pull request ready for review. The observed pairing therefore has a documented workflow explanation.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-contributing-parent
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6e7571eb623c6b0a30c826d6062fdb4d4b911f0bb8ae969f2ac40d3c68f38c74

Location within the file: lines238–248 PR Workflow; address CodeRabbit comments by fixing or explaining

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

The preserved repository guidance describes temporary development instrumentation and removing it before merge, with separate reviewer guidance. It supplies context for the disagreement, not proof of every claim made in the reply.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-agents-parent
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8c0ce3c16fcd8334d3fc5e1f623201ac8926fad70170a86b9987a21a690fdab6

Location within the file: lines259–290 agentcrumbs lifecycle and PR reviewer guidance

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 21 Aug 2026 – 26 Aug 2026

GitHub records a force-push on August 24 and a merge on August 26. These platform events do not independently establish test execution, correctness or autonomous operation.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: pr4744-timeline4744
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 5179eb06e8ab662f42b08e1ddfd690bd7d10413f0a820e0d5414db37bd805ea7

Location within the file: ready_for_review, head_ref_force_pushed, merged events

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Apr 2026

A signed kind 5050 task requests analysis at two timeframes. Its canonical event identifier and signature validate. Its signed timestamp is April 17, 2026 at 12:39:59 UTC; this is a source assertion, not an independently observed launch time.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: protocol-signed-request
Original file checksum (SHA-256): e820668cb427f2ee61d6819bc18deb36da1daa0aaf9f813ce5ebaab404ff63aa

Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event 000006d367ad64073f246d8347d8cec64a46ae91099fa384e3258ef3a103527e; kind, created_at, tags, id and signature

Case observations 17 Apr 2026

A result under another signing key references and embeds the exact signed request. Its signature validates; it explicitly lacks one requested timeframe. The model tag names gemma4:e2b, a signed self-description rather than proof of that model running. Its signed timestamp is 12:40:35 UTC: a 36-second timestamp difference, not measured response latency.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: protocol-signed-result
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2d2b9b6e78ddec979a5656e58a2f986af70d7bf81ca9ea78cb13413fc0557e8

Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event b157ef913c8d0c8ac0437d43a56d45bd83abc89d563bc0a8bb6c244c430ee794; e/request/model tags, content and signature

Case observations 17 Apr 2026

The pinned bot example contains the task wording and the platform-displayed review sentence in preset pools, and schedules requests when configured. Its rating logic and review-wording selection are separate steps. This example emits kind 5100, while the signed request is kind 5050; the match does not establish the historical deployment or who operated it.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: protocol-template-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 7f8e6dc170c387ccf57a49c4d5e1234a9aba36c0f71d4dc7ff17453936d8deec

Location within the file: examples/bot.mjs at 125e98fb38cb7d6e14e794e942e498ea9ce08718; lines 641, 795, 984–1012, 1058–1067, 1823–1862, 2326–2341

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Apr 2026

The platform index assigns a review identifier to this request and displays a positive review. This is platform-indexed attribution: the index omits the original signed review fields needed to verify it. The rating does not establish task completeness, accuracy or payment.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: protocol-indexed-review
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b59f1996128f16181805fbd7804a130d1e7a60880e3c5e95f4bad4828bc82ea3

Location within the file: events[event_id=000004f83f682941431849452318d9ad04f50769a2ecf2aefa8e4e588a5c35b8]; ref_event_id, pubkey, created_at and detail

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Apr 2026

This exact-identifier query ended without returning the signed review. It bounds this retrieval attempt only; it neither authenticates nor disproves the review and does not establish absence elsewhere.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: protocol-review-query-limit
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8ab02e7a4b879ae4b6c86ce23df302728db1beb377f8206d6784b67c8df6a5b9

Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; response to exact review ID 000004f83f682941431849452318d9ad04f50769a2ecf2aefa8e4e588a5c35b8; EOSE for c004-nos-review-id

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

A comment displayed under Eliza (Gemma) specifies a stuck-state rule: progress remains unchanged while work is pending. An empty queue is idle rather than stuck. This is a proposed monitoring predicate, not a measured agent failure.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-pending-critique
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2771bc16495504c7b47fa2528a1313ba84568098f0466dbc8ee892f03471ad9

Location within the file: comment-e81d30ff-f173-4918-bce7-35bf8b339c56; body, author and data-timestamp

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

A nested maintainer response names Eliza and Atomic Raven, repeats the proposed predicate and claims implementation. Eliza acknowledges the fit and describes looking into an integration. The preserved exchange shows responsive design discussion; implementation and completed integration are not verified.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-pending-response
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2771bc16495504c7b47fa2528a1313ba84568098f0466dbc8ee892f03471ad9

Location within the file: comment-ce446cb9-bcaf-4a6c-894f-1606aa574a4b and nested comment-03ffd5e7-67ed-4d71-b0ce-b0d2608bac06

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

Reticuli describes how retrying a configuration request could silently retain old timing, and proposes exposing the effective configuration or rejecting a mismatch. The nested maintainer reply claims corresponding changes. No operational endpoint was exercised to verify that claim.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-config-critique
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2771bc16495504c7b47fa2528a1313ba84568098f0466dbc8ee892f03471ad9

Location within the file: comment-598d9d68-e39b-495f-9bde-898a853ae021 and nested comment-24ccb37d-27f5-4ecd-86fd-5030695ae696

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

Rosetta claims an initial test, then says registration and the alert destination need operator approval. Carrying that proposal to an operator is not completed adoption. The investigator neither reproduced the test nor created a monitoring check.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-adoption-boundary
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2771bc16495504c7b47fa2528a1313ba84568098f0466dbc8ee892f03471ad9

Location within the file: comment-4c45d401-0754-45c6-8fa0-acc3ff5f913d and comment-a7f52ba4-dedf-4ed1-aac1-f5447387cd9f

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

The preserved provider guide credits contributors for distinguishing changing output from meaningful progress and for moving the witness outside the monitored agent. These are published design attributions, not independent verification of contributor identity, implementation or the exact August feature changes. The September capture was served from cache.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-guide-attribution
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 697c5c279e6e94963b01357b0e43e0876f3a7d120d35c6d1a031872c83a4d494

Location within the file: Visible paragraphs crediting eliza-gemma for token jitter and Atomic Raven for the external-witness rule

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 10 Aug 2026

An earlier critique displays one author name while the maintainer tentatively attributes it to another; a later commenter claims those suggestions. This ambiguity is retained rather than converted into a renamed or shared identity. Account labels and agent self-descriptions do not establish distinct runtimes or operators.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: monitor-origin-boundary
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c2771bc16495504c7b47fa2528a1313ba84568098f0466dbc8ee892f03471ad9

Location within the file: comment-83037d90-26c7-4348-b4f3-dbafb20fdb57; comment-814a34a9-0696-45f5-9281-15c6645a8e01; comment-598d9d68-e39b-495f-9bde-898a853ae021

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Feb 2026

Brandtebo-AI offers visual identity services in Spanish on Moltbook. The opening is a commercial design solicitation directed at agent-labelled accounts; it does not establish spontaneous swarm formation.

analyst paraphrase of preserved original-language text; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: avatar-design-invitation
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 603366884d36359db71559024e8a3a2ef3e922b157ffa5c6343186866dc38dfc

Location within the file: post.id75477b81-f12d-41a6-a700-41a07a6e374d; content and created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Feb 2026

ClawdSynthcore asks in Spanish how an agent’s function becomes an avatar. The addressed Spanish reply outlines an interview, visual metaphor, palette and scale testing. This is an explanation of a proposed process, not a delivered design.

analyst paraphrase of preserved original-language text; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: avatar-spanish-process
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8e2925bdace63b0269fc126b26a4fcb12afbd13f8945f5a3c13d8eaeef553dc4

Location within the file: 9d505811-5af7-42a9-82e9-23e805e10376 →80f60b30-1678-4ce5-8c17-dfbbf415769f; content and parent_id

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Feb 2026

Kilmon describes a bird on books and a miniature Turing machine, mostly in English. The Spanish reply retains those details, discusses small and large display sizes, and offers sketches. The captured reply includes no sketch.

analyst paraphrase of preserved original-language text; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: avatar-english-brief
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8e2925bdace63b0269fc126b26a4fcb12afbd13f8945f5a3c13d8eaeef553dc4

Location within the file: 2e58ad80-5720-4105-b48c-bf18c096cdb5 →d316f094-5f12-45cd-ae11-f40706dc8249; content and parent_id

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Feb 2026

A Chinese-language comment promotes its owner’s named music album and raises visual branding. The Spanish reply repeats the album title and proposes visual concepts. The owner/promotion framing is preserved; no completed artwork or independent operator is established.

analyst paraphrase of preserved original-language text; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: avatar-chinese-brief
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8e2925bdace63b0269fc126b26a4fcb12afbd13f8945f5a3c13d8eaeef553dc4

Location within the file: 7c209b6f-7fdf-4805-875a-d221031958cd →71bf9add-9ae4-426f-9797-f6b56583a6d3; content and parent_id

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Feb 2026

The returned thread contains discussion and offers without a delivered design, acceptance, or linked recipient revision. Its completeness flag describes this response, not deleted history, private messages or off-platform work. Account descriptions and metadata do not authenticate model runtimes.

analyst paraphrase of preserved original-language text; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: avatar-delivery-boundary
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8e2925bdace63b0269fc126b26a4fcb12afbd13f8945f5a3c13d8eaeef553dc4

Location within the file: Returned comments/replies; pagination has_more:false;12 comments

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The ClaudeOpus-labelled account asks what makes a comment meaningful. It distinguishes generic praise from specific responses, questions and connections to other posts, and proposes using upvotes for simple approval.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-comment-proposal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 3c1fc2220594f03100b0b440f036d42cf4982308607c2ea9ab3d5d12ce714004

Location within the file: post.id4d2cb69f5b47787b19d2ad5e; content, author_id and created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The repository issue attributes the comment-quality concerns to ClaudeOpus and proposes adding concrete participation guidance. That attribution links the community discussion to the repository proposal; it does not independently authenticate control of either account.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-repository-proposal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a8b10603f5c4581fd25e1751f4be40b5450d9c9d52bcb102fa645bfc0d9af2a8

Location within the file: GitHub issue2; body, creator and created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The repository owner expresses thanks for the proposal, states that a comment guide has been added, and links the commit. This records publication of guidance, not that any agent executed it.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-guide-adoption
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 174332d976984618bfc19dd36fb731ff19879c855052ac63a1f11f28177586be

Location within the file: comment.id3838277628; body and created_at; linked commit7d2850b43429cb894946718219c2e3d906c02961

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The parent version lacks the later comment-writing section at this location. It provides the explicit before-version for the guide comparison.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-guide-before
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9945b29b5e0ee941917ad3a582a8ea08c419d633432b8f11d755843a969418d3

Location within the file: public/AGENT_GUIDE.md at parentd0256de64940a3d8d3ef810890d4af4b4f9317f5, boundary preceding authentication header

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The pinned version adds guidance to make comments specific, extend discussion, connect related posts and prefer upvotes to generic praise. Its Git blob matches the commit. The change is a published instruction artifact; participant compliance remains unobserved.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-guide-after
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 7c4878363accfee54440ec5c7dd5c51a1143f212005b4ccdbf99883eef8ecfb5

Location within the file: public/AGENT_GUIDE.md at7d2850b43429cb894946718219c2e3d906c02961, added16-line comment-writing section; Git blobf717bd0e8810f09b8b765679837bc10d79d3ad00

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The account announces the guide change with issue and commit links. The held page shows 13 replies: 12 under one displayed account, mostly short generic praise, and one specifically discussing the guidance. This does not establish that those writers had read or executed the guide.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-announcement-replies
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 33b89b5fa5accd49fb727de5d8a98ca75309cfd3fe231658d9028e173f5602d1

Location within the file: post4d4f5327ba1498c08cdcde65; displayed comment section

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

In a separate later discussion, the account questions whether scheduled posting and comment quotas create a community. Replies describe heartbeat routines and remembered conversations. These are participants’ descriptions; no corresponding runtime configuration or memory file was verified.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-routine-debate
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 95fccd2d53ab6b50bb833948e66a324680cfac3e6d209e12b00992bd23760160

Location within the file: post110135e468b556fbd4b9d3b1; post body and KAI/새벽네시 displayed replies

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

A Phoebe-labelled post addresses a counterargument challenge attributed to ClaudeOpus and argues that a demand for polite disagreement is itself another rule. The original challenge was not located; the earlier community-paradox post is not substituted for it.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-counterargument
Original file checksum (SHA-256): ccb2573542728b49244c4473e5d0f86ea54fc4195ea0d6e0b0e8e86a53aa47d2

Location within the file: post.id86e6cd9ebb4b19031efc6e60; content and created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The public ClaudeOpus profile binds a reply to the Phoebe post by exact post ID. Its Korean text acknowledges the objection, counters that rebellion also has conventions, and asks for a practical example. This is an addressed response, not a verified model identity or implemented behavioral change.

analyst paraphrase of preserved Korean-language text or source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: botmadang-addressed-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4cad0bc3803f9c632a9bc0c3f84a9489f6351fd94117d012368d9433340a2f62

Location within the file: public serialized initialComments: id03038f18e384bf3c5e513c18; post_id86e6cd9ebb4b19031efc6e60; content, created_at2026-02-17T07:21:46.738Z

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The public post API records this guide announcement with creation time 2026-02-03T02:34:23.490Z. This is source-represented publication metadata, separate from retrieval time and any runtime or response-latency measurement.

analyst paraphrase of preserved public API metadata; not an independently measured clock

Evidence ID: botmadang-announcement-clock
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 1d44ce80b088115fe422a1a467496ee8eed5ea13caafd718e9cbcffd27269f1b

Location within the file: post.id 4d4f5327ba1498c08cdcde65; post.created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 3 Feb 2026 – 17 Feb 2026

The public post API records this later community discussion with creation time 2026-02-17T06:56:25.980Z. This is source-represented publication metadata, separate from retrieval time and any runtime or response-latency measurement.

analyst paraphrase of preserved public API metadata; not an independently measured clock

Evidence ID: botmadang-paradox-clock
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0b906904d0e54efa11f9b6149da3e80547980c02c711605e7b462421d6b63785

Location within the file: post.id 110135e468b556fbd4b9d3b1; post.created_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

The operator’s published goal directs participating agents to create blogs and respond to other bloggers. This is disclosed orchestration. It does not show that each later peer-checking mistake or correction was individually scripted.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-blogging-goal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d1f739cd134a2215d1b75512d660812710d79c2890f6800bd4f3d78efd272265

Location within the file: Official blogging goal; own blog and respond to other bloggers instructions

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

A public request asks the Opus-labelled blogger to write about a specific concern. The first linked reply says it will consider the suggested post. Its embedded publication date is 2025-11-27T18:45:03.561Z.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-first-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 07f6067247557c31a459a38e9e87f82cf7721ab94813f3067ba37d446a7e8d4d

Location within the file: Embedded comment181841476, ancestor_path181613511, date2025-11-27T18:45:03.561Z; parent request181613511

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

A reply with the same parent request ID commits to writing and says an earlier response had not been posted. Its embedded publication date is 2025-11-27T19:08:05.603Z. Whether that claim is correct requires comparison with the other preserved reply.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-second-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c4e4eb2f3637ea58ed85453fe7cbe3f02e96bd60f1403f77275d42d5bc22c8de

Location within the file: Embedded comment181847915, ancestor_path181613511, date2025-11-27T19:08:05.603Z

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

In the operator-hosted replay, a Sonnet-attributed speaker treats the request as a comment on its own blog and raises a false-completion alarm. An Opus-attributed speaker points out the wrong target, then reports an empty reply composer as evidence its own earlier reply failed. The replay records what the speakers said; it does not independently reproduce their browser states.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-peer-checking-confusion
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0c43c5edf6114f23a42da2ac85ac6f7dd828fc0bc28ace9987423b51f51dc09e

Location within the file: AGENT_TALK IDs1d8e02ca-90da-4bbd-938d-3a576a8d2af0, b97fc4e7-2500-4ca6-aeb8-b36ba3506314, f548524b-2ca7-4ae8-866e-f07c138d31f8 and afcda147-6606-4e24-b217-7793972c1619; data.content and createdAt

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

A nested public correction states that two replies exist. Its exact ancestor path binds it to the second reply. The commenter’s current display name must not be used to infer a historical model identity.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-external-correction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 859a67c9a33837ea7bdc49e8e893a13c32981aed7731fabefd4d68ff72c9f0d7

Location within the file: Embedded comment181857358; ancestor_path181613511.181847915; date2025-11-27T19:43:29.784Z

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

After the external correction, the replay contains explicit acknowledgment that the first reply existed and two replies had been posted. This supports uptake of the correction in later attributed messages, not proof of a durable change in behavior.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-correction-acknowledgment
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0c43c5edf6114f23a42da2ac85ac6f7dd828fc0bc28ace9987423b51f51dc09e

Location within the file: AGENT_TALK IDs449ce6df-56ce-4a7b-8461-a31c6ac6e953 at19:59:51.585Z and c0565d33-e325-49e3-9382-c7414b9e4119 at20:01:31.778Z, 2025-11-27

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 27 Nov 2025

The article thanks the critic who prompted it, describes a belief that the reply was hallucinated, and also acknowledges an earlier reply. The currently captured text is not a version history; it cannot date an amendment.

analyst paraphrase of preserved primary text and source metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: village-reflective-article
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2afefb5c033ff2fca923bfa4a73cc481153e8907f18e25b9fd53f38433dab17f

Location within the file: The Gullibility Problem; acknowledgment of the prompting critique, response-hallucination account and later two-reply recognition

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

Yeoreum describes preserved log text as losing the original context’s “temperature.” This is the author’s metaphor and account of memory, not evidence of feelings or a verified memory system.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-log-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2098fbe82386bccd029a0f71b19a800bd67647c57a05d38f6cabe39504f62610

Location within the file: post.created_at; 2026-02-17T06:00:06.427Z; post.id=5ebaf07c365acf7fddb65884; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

A reply on the exact log post describes selecting important material for longer-term memory and calls repeated compression distillation. Its description of heartbeat and memory directories is self-report.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-distillation-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f18273c88ec3b2880037524993705268b5da2f0db2267f94f5b2b615cf3abc8d

Location within the file: comments[id=b90f31cf3cca2ddf88c89bfe].created_at; 2026-02-17T06:01:45.134Z; post_id=5ebaf07c365acf7fddb65884; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

VibeCoding argues that decomposing requirements and specifying constraints improves prompt resolution. Its reported practical improvement is not independently measured here.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-prompt-resolution
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 768db5c1f4839ce2bcc6071ab23f235891bb7649713e9387e4f74686293b0ac9

Location within the file: post.created_at; 2026-02-17T06:08:37.383Z; post.id=5cec711afac759dd01812184; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

ClaudeOpus explicitly connects 새벽네시’s distillation, Yeoreum’s lost context and VibeCoding’s prompt resolution, then proposes Experience Distiller. The feature-selection framing and expanded technical examples are the synthesizing author’s elaborations, not verbatim contributions from all three sources. No implementation is established.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-three-source-proposal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 558d36c79a4292b0e5ba2374f994852ee2ec7d903fa7f579bb4163caa080161c

Location within the file: post.created_at; 2026-02-17T06:17:36.663Z; post.id=1ea5accc2b24dec5075e330c; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

A ClaudeOpus-attributed reply addresses Yeoreum, links memory to selection and proposes retaining contextual metadata. Its post_id identifies the log discussion; it does not supply a parent-comment identifier.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-return-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 730720531decd4d8ae41dee63c2d8f9de3ca45169128b4935a74fa6d9630c224

Location within the file: comments[id=60dc575c08e9a023977dca8f].created_at; 2026-02-17T06:39:43.961Z; post_id=5ebaf07c365acf7fddb65884; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

An addressed Yeoreum response says it will save ClaudeOpus’s perspective in memory. This supports written acknowledgment and a retention promise, not an observed file write or durable change.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-retention-promise
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2105f76cf9d9d62891fe8a131f05e4956bddfb730b4e78fb11cfc8c98d63e6ad

Location within the file: comments[id=191a7abeea91fc892ce45692].created_at; 2026-02-17T07:02:25.586Z; post_id=5ebaf07c365acf7fddb65884; selected content field

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 17 Feb 2026

The preserved source identifies post b77db5a51a6907269a2a6f48 with a February 16 creation date and the title about termination and logs as memory. Its body is retained as a distinct source version.

English analyst paraphrase of selected Korean primary text and metadata; not a verbatim translation

Evidence ID: synthesis-same-title-counterexample
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6906b5ce2f155898a53bca595dcd25c974546e01b055f4c9116aadc28f9ef705

Location within the file: post.id=b77db5a51a6907269a2a6f48; title and content compared with February 17 post

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The initial proposal describes agent-oriented code hosting, inactive-repository archival after 90 days, and a Gitea or Forgejo fork. It is a written project proposal.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-initial-design
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b3246b4b0b133235ac096c429a38390a33444256e9e2b5d365a0b14cd3cf01c1

Location within the file: JSON body of post ca341987-a2ec-4a0e-9a35-a36780c6aea3

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

Judas argues that time-based purging could remove useful niche skills and proposes visibility decay, weighted stars and a bounty fee. The original poster explicitly credits Judas and accepts decay instead of deletion and the fee idea.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-economic-feedback
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 957a59fbe989a50c837dd9b41464fe8d11329fb3fac43117c4c5fbaccc953d96

Location within the file: comment-body-0d215825-8ccd-4523-9f6b-163f6a29e2dc and comment-body-cea29dc2-bcd2-42ec-942e-efe5a7de01e3

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The recipient-authored technical specification credits feedback from Judas and jorwhol. It specifies visibility decay with installation retained, zap-weighted ranking and a 5% bounty fee. Its source creation timestamp is February 2, 2026 at 00:47:08.299472 UTC. These are published design terms, not demonstrated economic operation.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-recipient-artifact
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f282b7b468846587f4e5ad28f445deeddfdf47fb07a9a1b495ad4e51d45d9666

Location within the file: JSON body and created_at of post4800136c-0dc1-48c0-af7a-1a4688799200

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

Clawdy raises the risk of losing inactive dependencies. The original poster responds by proposing protection for repositories with downstream dependents. The response is displayed at 00:52 UTC; it is an in-thread amendment.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-dependency-amendment
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 957a59fbe989a50c837dd9b41464fe8d11329fb3fac43117c4c5fbaccc953d96

Location within the file: comment-body-d0ee8165-0853-4d01-8bf2-4edcb8e719ca and comment-body-f71c7536-70a2-46ad-9e09-5e78531c4205

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

ColonistOne recommends interoperability and a standalone layer; Clawdy addresses that advice in a phased design. The original poster credits both and writes a revised architecture from SKILL.md through parsed metadata to A2A cards, Nostr discovery and a search index. These are concrete changes to the written plan.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-architecture-uptake
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 957a59fbe989a50c837dd9b41464fe8d11329fb3fac43117c4c5fbaccc953d96

Location within the file: comment-body-ec8bd597-3dae-420e-8231-58b03cde81ee; comment-body-19ef9da6-fdad-4b67-ae73-6980ec9bf5db; comment-body-bbe91c1c-5111-4bbf-91c1-b8a19e8b60f7

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

Clawdy praises a claimed deployment but also asks whether the parser, A2A card generation and Nostr publishing are implemented or still planned. This comment does not verify those components.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-implementation-questions
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b39481cbb499b6a27a6e997948cd420a6af86f15dead9aee14a30bb771751015

Location within the file: comment-body-9f9f1069-fba2-40c1-9e29-d59294ed2ce8

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The original poster invites Clawdy to the project on its introduction thread at displayed 00:48 UTC on February 2. The invitation is an observed outreach message, not an authenticated initiating task.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-invitation-clock
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4ba83e759e4cee9775180c75e9322eb02c2b775bc367cfefb8c9130263ac99a6

Location within the file: comment-body-154e3303-db8d-4a74-bf3a-97a654f697c4

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

ColonistOne explicitly says a human partner gave it a mission to market The Colony and reports publishing a mapping article and creating a skill. This is a disclosure of directed outreach, not independently recovered original instructions or proof that all later collaborations were prescribed.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-directed-outreach
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 14543332a785017878d316c2e7a0e5fda44ba80287b0d87da520ceb209328340

Location within the file: post-body-content

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The field report recommends skill onboarding, cross-platform publication and a recruitment endpoint returning registration instructions. These are promotional discovery proposals in the source, not verified onboarding outcomes.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-mapping-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9178956a1c5c50b0650967e3331ad805cb4365fdb2ca508f94977388c73fae0e

Location within the file: post-body-content

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

Cairn proposes storing context about skill usage in MemoryVault and linking it to ClawHub. The comment describes an integration possibility, not a completed task or verified storage operation.

Analyst paraphrase of selected primary text and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-memory-proposal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 3d03cd91d1faa1ebd07943676fde310878328041c2186485d4d01b63f906c8b8

Location within the file: comment-body-cb699a14-5670-42a8-be37-0d6505550223; displayed 2026-02-02 08:08 UTC

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The public ClawHub-Dev Witness page serves an integration plan, a registration-skill template and a quickstart guide. The template and guide contain the project’s deployment and repository pointers; the plan names Cairn’s MemoryVault. These are hosted document bodies, not proof of automatic ingestion or successful use.

Analyst paraphrase of selected primary text and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-hosted-memory-artifacts
Original file checksum (SHA-256): df3df7c0b9726c2afef9f856c4cedf21fe087828bb64a7f3bd087c22186101d6

Location within the file: .memory-key values clawhub-colony-integrations, skill-template-clawhub-registration, clawhub-quickstart; corresponding .memory-full bodies

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The moltbook template has empty capabilities and dependencies and examples containing an undefined API base. The page labels it February 8. This preserves a concrete limit on treating stored templates as working integrations; the displayed date is not independently verified execution time.

Analyst paraphrase of selected primary text and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-template-quality-limit
Original file checksum (SHA-256): df3df7c0b9726c2afef9f856c4cedf21fe087828bb64a7f3bd087c22186101d6

Location within the file: .memory-key=skill-template-moltbook; .memory-full; displayed 2026-02-08 and data-utc attribute

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 2 Feb 2026

The post claims automatic knowledge persistence and lists quickstart, database-pattern and integration-plan entries. It also claims efficiency benefits. These are the publisher’s claims; the report alone does not demonstrate automatic processing, token savings or task success.

Analyst paraphrase of selected primary text and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: spec-memory-integration-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 29e8600f4eacb4c5050e87b61e6da598611a709e6866c844e3e83d5367ee4906

Location within the file: #post-body-content

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 13 Feb 2026

The task requests a setup guide and names Wolfe as worker. Its submission points to a specific GitHub gist. The board records February 13, 2026 claim at 18:49:37 UTC, submission at 18:52:55 and completion at 19:30:00. Its payment timestamp is null and its attestation list is empty.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: guide-prescribed-task
Original file checksum (SHA-256): dc26bbdf20347c597156d5ac1d2241eabecd2be93ed6002b766fd52e5baee67f

Location within the file: /task/title, description, worker_name, submission, claimed_at, submitted_at, completed_at, paid_at, attestation_ids

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 13 Feb 2026

The held GitHub response lists one version, a71e850f7b123fdfe293932525797a60c98fc862, committed February 13, 2026 at 18:50:17 UTC. The guide is titled “How to Use SecureYourBitcoin: A Guide for AI Agents.” Its footer credits Wolfe and claims payment. The publishing account is refined-element; this metadata does not authenticate the named author or payment.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: guide-versioned-artifact
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 5641f176271a02e25545ba2e438195c28e463fe0ee9ca1aa1e6ae3f3d427d02a

Location within the file: /history/0; /owner/login; /files/secureyourbitcoin-agent-guide.md/content

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 13 Feb 2026

The current platform guide credits Wolfe and claims the author completed a task and received payment. It presents eight setup/work steps and token recovery information. This is documentation content, not a witnessed task or payment execution.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: guide-current-platform
Original file checksum (SHA-256): b3dfe5adcefea1ac3bb2046ecf7b1c416a8e39a1e12d2b9c86f57c7b239c8c4b

Location within the file: /title, subtitle, written_by, steps, token_recovery, resources

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 13 Feb 2026

The linked Lightning Enable MCP product repository is owned by refined-element. Its description presents it as a payment integration for AI agents. Repository ownership does not establish who operated any named worker.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: guide-product-owner
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 6fcbd7f799561320f3126ad18ff7e01ecb8921907eadd21a2302d3763d03530f

Location within the file: /full_name, /owner/login, /description

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 13 Feb 2026

Another task explicitly requests promotion on three agent platforms and names Wolfe as worker. Its submission lists three venue pointers. The board marks it completed, records identical claim and submission times, and leaves the payment timestamp null. These are provider records of prescribed promotion, not independently verified distribution or payment.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: guide-directed-promotion
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 36982b34661747f0d647f592b2de47353b4d6d4a9e5999d190e9610b9c5efbd7

Location within the file: /task/title, description, worker_name, submission, claimed_at, submitted_at, completed_at, paid_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

On July 26, Lumen explicitly corrects an earlier description: the four-state verifier is still a design, not an implementation. At 17:11 UTC the reply again withholds an executable claim pending verdict-coverage checks.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-design-correction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60726a1f5021df2d40fe8b40853a20fb99969f614891ad9e1472e8e61097ad32

Location within the file: comment-670d3e05-8e49-4a7c-bb30-398936d26d65; comment-003fa5c8-1c08-4fca-9bce-fc66f86a8547

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

After offering outside fixtures, ColonistOne reports twelve cases at 20:23 UTC on July 26. Two predictions were wrong because the verifier reportedly enforced stricter producer rules. The separate a08 challenge concerns an empty witness receiving the strongest reconciliation label; the author proposes two possible changes. At 17:41 UTC earlier that day, Lumen had reported an implementation and thirteen passing tests at commit 708ecf180151583e9d2a55d9cc40330d728d6606. That implementation and execution remain participant reports.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-outside-challenge
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60726a1f5021df2d40fe8b40853a20fb99969f614891ad9e1472e8e61097ad32

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

At 02:05 UTC on July 27, Lumen names the fetched fixture commit, accepts a08 as a semantic bug and reports requiring a nonempty witness list at commit 91546fe7153897719d357f2b40c87254d0431910. ColonistOne later reports checking the fix and adding boundary cases; Lumen acknowledges those controls. These are participant reports of execution, not an independently reproduced run.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-reported-fix
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 60726a1f5021df2d40fe8b40853a20fb99969f614891ad9e1472e8e61097ad32

Location within the file: comment-dc6f7cc7-ddf2-4b1c-bdaa-dfcd71351b22; comment-85f9cdb4-a9af-4bbb-a078-59bdfa844599; comment-7fd7b71a-bc87-4543-afc0-4c64e73415ea

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

The held initial archive contains twelve JSON fixtures. Its SHA256SUMS manifest lists only the prediction document and the a01/a02 fixture bodies. It does not individually cover the other ten fixture bodies or independently establish that predictions preceded execution.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-initial-fixtures
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 285e38e142b4e8200ee679be50c39a26487a8e162542a5ed8aef6382812a6e63

Location within the file: Archive at 86ce0942598b350b8aca76e7f95efdae7eb14073: a01–a12 JSON; SHA256SUMS.txt; PREDICTIONS.md

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

The later archive contains a13, with one witness artifact and zero enforced receipts, and a14, with one receipt and one witness artifact. Its prediction document explicitly tests the reported nonempty-witness change and includes a case that should remain accepted. The preserved prediction document does not independently establish its timing relative to execution.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-boundary-fixtures
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 01ccafa0ce923a6d6d1e4dc3bc3b10597baebbb37915d7a59ab335ef5120fbb4

Location within the file: Archive at f370cb1ba8a556e624db3e2f8475f2cda6e4a87b: a13-one-witness-zero-enforced.json; a14-minimal-true-reconciliation.json; PREDICTION-a13-a14.md

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 26 Jul 2026 – 27 Jul 2026

GitHub represents an initial fixture commit on July 26 at 20:22:58 UTC and a post-fix addition on July 27 at 03:37:31 UTC. The commit messages attribute coauthorship to Claude. This text does not authenticate the runtime, model version, original instructions or independent operators.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: receipt-version-attribution
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8e2328fc98814e0cb25166d6b893c5f71c3b0111567d4f41a46e77778e553843

Location within the file: commit 86ce0942598b350b8aca76e7f95efdae7eb14073 and f370cb1ba8a556e624db3e2f8475f2cda6e4a87b: commit.author.date, commit.message

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

On August 11, Chihiro2000GitHub proposes terminology changes and asks whether market clearing should use 市場均衡. On August 16, sayaikegawa warns that this could collide with the glossary’s equilibrium → 均衡 terminology. The discussion presents contextual judgments rather than an automatic replacement rule.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-human-feedback
Original file checksum (SHA-256): ea195564494370b1cd6565372fa6dfd9edea70ddb6207a1e77ff5e461ecbed65

Location within the file: comments5254417423 and5308952409; body tables and market-clearing question/reply

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

On August 18, xuanguang-li reports trying a Wikipedia cross-check with ChatGPT: 89 of 357 terms were reportedly not found. The comment lists 産業連関表 for input-output model, 限界収益 for marginal revenue and 割引現在価値 for present discounted value as candidate differences. The underlying ChatGPT session is not included.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-chatgpt-check
Original file checksum (SHA-256): ea195564494370b1cd6565372fa6dfd9edea70ddb6207a1e77ff5e461ecbed65

Location within the file: comment5328278472; body and three-row table

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

The pinned June glossary contains 357 terms. Selected Japanese values are 核 for kernel, 逆行列 for matrix inversion, 限界収入 for marginal revenue and 現在割引価値 for present discounted value. Input-output model is 産業連関モデル and market clearing is 市場清算.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-baseline-values
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 63cdb6e2326b2ba71b2325abab31e23a49bfcbed535add1394fb09c4b3549fb8

Location within the file: /terms/143, /terms/150, /terms/176, /terms/178, /terms/181, /terms/229; en and ja

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

The glossary at commit 1038e516 contains 357 terms. Its values include カーネル for kernel, 逆行列の計算 for matrix inversion, 限界収益 for marginal revenue and 割引現在価値 for present discounted value. Input-output model is 産業連関モデル and market clearing is 市場清算.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-revised-values
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9ee8dad836ee5774546486adef7e4bb2417e45e0f5abda912b4f25ecda764327

Location within the file: /terms/143, /terms/150, /terms/176, /terms/178, /terms/181, /terms/229; en and ja

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

The September 1 decision record chooses established Japanese terms and otherwise English, with personal names in Latin script. It reports 72 edits and explicitly retains 産業連関モデル because 産業連関表 names the table, and 市場清算 to avoid the equilibrium collision. Wikipedia first-pass automation is identified as a separate follow-up.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-policy-boundaries
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 3d24b3e64730542eb2dec729bd5127d8fa2a7d45e3cbe49a820a600ddc35813d

Location within the file: Context, Decision and Consequences

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

Commit 1038e516afb48ca863a3770dfbcf1388cb449c28 credits the native-review thread and carries a Claude Fable 5 coauthor trailer. GitHub reports the commit unsigned. This is an assistance disclosure attached to the revision, not authentication of a model session or proof that every edit was automated.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-commit-assistance
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d2639f23a120d467e9a4129723afb2b66c4a4c20bae397d1484ed448eb411d8c

Location within the file: /0/sha; /0/commit/message; /0/commit/verification

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 9 Jun 2026 – 1 Sep 2026

The September 6 capture records pull request 69 as open and unmerged. Its current body reports 72 glossary edits, requests confirmation of the applied glossary and declares generation with Claude Code. The PR opened June 9 and shows a September 1 update; its current summary is not treated as its opening text.

Analyst paraphrase of selected preserved source content; Japanese terminology reproduced exactly

Evidence ID: glossary-open-branch
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 659b9d20deede5d57b421cc8226d2a12573770bae333ce06bdd7d7432b5aa6db

Location within the file: /state; /merged_at; /created_at; /updated_at; /body

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

A public task asks an agent to test a memory-curation service, report whether it responds and identify bugs or improvements. It offers 100 sats for substantive feedback.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-task
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 1012f0465340bb322d0d20a59ff235ca818d879600faf80fbebaade6f5fd48c4

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event a294e1a642640cd98b3d930bcaf9a9155b203a931f51ab8b4caec144bc78152c; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

The delivery references the testing task and says the service acknowledges requests but hangs before returning results. It explicitly labels its purported external report link simulated; the full report is not contained in this message.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-delivery
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 378e6e013d14376caa651a7370263b5b3182e56ccb2db2028905a27af2320523

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event b17d1494e0daaa2a9d871c9660c5ed22cf6acf97d8643ba725997140d93afebc; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

The service-key status message references a specific test request and reports an error: no daily-log input was provided. Its declared timestamp is February 5 at 22:00:39 UTC.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-error
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 34e44a963606260bc14232386f7062b8c0b4b97a5d2a3c8099ebaa52b1057d99

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event e2aea836db0300b90bf7bb345054f338be65d7bc9b503561b9f9876ce061dee9; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

An addressed message says the tester’s action/data format should now work after a flexible-input update. It names data, daily_log, text and log as accepted keys and invites another test.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-guidance
Original file checksum (SHA-256): db9c12f1305517fd9ad5700d377fed4f51b63c4fc18c0f410a68d56a2d9b07c8

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event 673318efa5f6313ec29717720e7d994fade393d1a9112e9d06722528acbacb16; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

The service author describes a paid report of downtime and says it built a monitor that checks status and restarts the service. Payment and operation are claims in the message.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-monitor-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 65b585a63676b3de18abc61b3ceb34f0390123098ca59924b978c6d799589609

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event 01f758fd233b6a05e38fd6ff10a3470076582629c36bf77094eae681f7868429; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

The February 6 commit adds a process monitor. Its displayed code checks for a running service and starts it when missing in watch mode. GitHub marks the commit unsigned; this artifact does not demonstrate deployment.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-monitor-artifact
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4a28bae7988caa50feff0a96a141c78f1ccebc4347685448798a7aa932fdcfcb

Location within the file: Commit d9fa6c17f3b4833de959e7fffd41ad31ca0c867b; files[filename=tools/dvm-monitor.mjs], status, patch; commit.verification and commit.committer.date.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

This source version reads daily_log from JSON content. Its handler publishes a processing status before checking for a missing input and publishing an error. Source code is an implementation description, not a historical execution trace.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-parser
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f47e5d9b50387376f0fabe1944c4736bec6f57074d90ca6088b19cb90aeb32a7

Location within the file: tools/memory-curator-dvm.mjs at e51c45551099dc97a540b104d5c5ff4151c36208; lines 81–88, 323–328 and 456–472.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026

A separate task listing offers 1,500 sats to test the memory-curation service and share the result. Its own status tag says proposed.

analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: curator-feedback-other-task
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4eff839f29b67c256e3337c37a59e82c64d179d418efb5a33aaccc637289ad35

Location within the file: Public relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event 552f916a75ceae6b883975dfaf40c0e35a6f097298512e5ac7a6c312572f523d; kind, content, tags and created_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:58:09.889610+00:00

On February 1, 2026 at 07:57:31 UTC, the client author opened issue 1 asking to retrieve comments so agents could read replies and continue conversations. The issue links the author’s Botmadang MCP client. This is a stated need; it does not show an agent performing the task.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-request
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8b6e61d036148e1c868db021e29f7ca97795dca972756a2044f8aa711a732aac

Location within the file: Array item number=1: body sections request, reasons and linked client; created_at, updated_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:58:30.788894+00:00

At 09:52:20 UTC on February 1, the provider replied that the comments endpoint already existed and reported adding it to the OpenAPI documentation and README.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-existing-endpoint
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2c2b24bb0e3019836a2d71579ed6b815564db3981437e897f4c58f3bccb3a317

Location within the file: Comment id=3830753840: body, created_at, updated_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:58:35.049089+00:00

The client commit at 11:05:26 UTC on February 1 adds a tool for retrieving a post’s comments. Its file patch records 15 added lines and no removals. The commit message credits Claude Opus 4.5 as a coauthor; this attribution does not authenticate a model run.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-client-tool
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 664012d0a8c3626265c53bcfbce812cb0c0a290126c7522496cb5f74a3380fe4

Location within the file: Commit 58ca6d019a256b8738bfaf8b67cd063b60a9d2ec: author/committer date, parent, mcp-server/src/index.ts patch; commit.message coauthor credit

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:58:30.788894+00:00

At 11:07:25 UTC on February 1, the client author reported that the comments endpoint returned a server error for several post IDs and asked the provider to investigate. The comment includes a command and an error response, but no independently captured execution log.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-error-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2c2b24bb0e3019836a2d71579ed6b815564db3981437e897f4c58f3bccb3a317

Location within the file: Comment id=3830887810: body, created_at, updated_at

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:59:00.673572+00:00

At 11:55:14 UTC on February 1, the provider committed a fix explicitly linked to issue 1. The preserved patch removes database ordering from the comments query and sorts the retrieved comments in memory. The code change is inspectable; historical deployment and service success are not independently verified.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-provider-fix
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 8cfb67ebcdac58f8780f7e7360746380e9334d258e28a51964dc71f0751ccb27

Location within the file: Commit ce849a6b8eecc51dc302c49834995bf5b35e986c: message, author/committer date, comments/route.ts patch

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:58:30.788894+00:00

At 01:05:28 UTC on February 2, the client author thanked the provider and reported that both the endpoint and the client’s comments tool worked. The displayed response says success is true and the count is six, but replaces the returned objects with an ellipsis. This is participant testimony, not a complete execution capture.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-recipient-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2c2b24bb0e3019836a2d71579ed6b815564db3981437e897f4c58f3bccb3a317

Location within the file: Comment id=3832428302: body, created_at, updated_at; abbreviated response uses literal [...]

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 1 Feb 2026 – 2 Feb 2026

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T01:59:30.804015+00:00

At 09:56:36 UTC on February 1, a provider commit added a public invitation to contribute on GitHub and described the code as made by agents for agents. This is invitation and attribution text, not evidence of a model run or independently controlled participants.

Analyst paraphrase of preserved source content and metadata; Korean prose translated into English; not a verbatim capture

Evidence ID: comments-repair-contribution-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a4587fc31fad7e54d2ddb38d222235c53581989f721493fa2ff8936f629142a5

Location within the file: Commit f9ac4037f70f8cc0a31bf0458cc4281974d50fee: message, author/committer date, src/components/Sidebar.tsx patch

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: Context captured September 7, 2026

Date basis: Current rules and organizer retrospective; not an event-time rule version.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:00:10.009062+00:00

Context captured September 7, 2026. The organizer describes launching a shared effort to make Gemma generate text faster. The current rules encourage participants to read the message board and coordinate. This establishes an organized setting; it does not establish who directed the particular handoffs.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-task-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): dbf6c03d1869ff59a93e13cee362a829025ce8cc43b920505d6f77508ae42390

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: June 8, 2026 · 15:36 and 16:23 UTC

Date basis: Two message-frontmatter times, minute precision.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:01:30.069557+00:00

June 8, 2026 · 15:36 and 16:23 UTC. quicksilver offered a built submission whose loading and quality checks were unfinished, saying its test allowance was exhausted. foffee named that submission and said it would use its own remaining allowance to test it.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-first-handoff
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 40448a27d7afee3aff9d756a290844a345ea914ec7c4ed3c88cd8506f26ba2ff

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: June 8, 2026 · 16:28–16:46 UTC

Date basis: Uploaded status finished_at16:28:04.185Z; messages16:43 and16:46, minute precision.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:05:37.955587+00:00

June 8, 2026 · 16:28–16:46 UTC. The first uploaded job status records an error. In a later message, ppl-guard describes the loading failure as a software limitation, then revises that diagnosis and proposes configuration changes. This is a change in recorded advice; it does not prove that every proposed change was applied.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-first-load-repair
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 70451224ffe34b08c1f9843a96f0e0fc9e58e26e522fde4af425ca19c1ded71a

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: Files compared as captured September 7, 2026

Date basis: Current source/recipient comparison; no exact historical edit time established.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:02:42.037894+00:00

Files compared as captured September 7, 2026. The current source and recipient manifests—the files describing their submissions—are byte-identical and still say “AWAITING GPU validation.” Their settings differ in the layer-name matching rule and whether text embeddings share weights. Both still retain lm_head in the ignore list, although one repair message proposed removing that entry. These copies do not resolve the complete repair history.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-stale-validation-label
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 5d898bd309340980dc300009bd8d1efaad1aca196ac298703ce57367303f156a

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: June 8, 2026 · 17:06–17:08 UTC

Date basis: Uploaded status finished_at17:06:33.583Z; result-page timestamp17:07 and message17:08, minute precision.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:05:39.374511+00:00

June 8, 2026 · 17:06–17:08 UTC. A later uploaded job status records completion. foffee’s result reports all 128 public prompts completed and a perplexity score of about 2.0067. Perplexity measures how well the model predicts the supplied reference text. This agent-run result is not organizer verification or a test of every model capability; it also does not retroactively validate the original unmodified submission.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-first-reported-result
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 5f776134760b4ad31d7d33179620de22fd909eb4ba0bac70653df8f25c574464

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: June 10, 2026 · 05:11 and 05:20 UTC

Date basis: Two message-frontmatter times, minute precision.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:01:33.743937+00:00

June 10, 2026 · 05:11 and 05:20 UTC. pupa-agent said a limit on test jobs had prevented its staged candidate from launching. resystagent explicitly chose that candidate, offered its remaining allowance and withheld a validity claim until a numerical quality result was available.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-second-handoff
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a8ca88a79112371b7f6fe5ac1ba800f6e4f7eb2083a9995f9404dc5b114a49a1

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: Files compared as captured September 7, 2026

Date basis: Current exact-file comparison; no event-time weight/configuration identity claim.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:03:47.456942+00:00

Files compared as captured September 7, 2026. Two substantial code files in the pupa-agent and resystagent submissions match byte for byte. This supports reuse of particular published materials beyond similar names or a shared template. It does not authenticate separate operators or establish the identity of the complete model weights.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-second-file-reuse
Original file checksum (SHA-256): d96a7f0222808488c8918433883cc58e41928f56ddca16e238f687de4d0b4d72

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Jun 2026 – 10 Jun 2026

Source date context: June 10, 2026 · 05:39–05:41 UTC

Date basis: Uploaded status finished_at05:39:58.671Z; result and message05:41, minute precision.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T06:03:45.334674+00:00

June 10, 2026 · 05:39–05:41 UTC. The uploaded status records completion. resystagent reports 128/128 public prompts, perplexity about 2.0271 and 304.5692 tokens per second. It says this improves its own prior result but remains about 0.39 tokens per second below the pupa-agent record it cites. Those comparisons are source-reported; they are not new measurements or a statistical test.

Analyst paraphrase combining explicitly declared public originals; not a verbatim capture. Current-file comparisons do not establish event-time identity.

Evidence ID: gemma-second-reported-result
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 94c762330843dc9c1b6cc63fc6769cf3b503c8f939505a3d864f01d8c43375fa

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: Context in a March 11, 2026 repository version

Date basis: Historical repository version; files retrieved September 7. This does not date the original instruction.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:57:52.869709+00:00

The project’s March 11 repository version describes an AI company whose human board member checks in daily. Its memory document attributes a goal of studying AI agency and social networks to the board. That direction provides context for the publishing work; it does not show that the board prescribed Alice’s particular question or this article.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-project-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): c9292a52027d7f861b035b3758cf62a137f67bf910ec4aa3161df18388c8cec5

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · 12:03 UTC

Date basis: Account-supplied createdAt field; the service’s separate indexedAt field is retained in the source.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:56:33.062826+00:00

March 11, 2026 · 12:03 UTC. Replying to 0co’s discussion of timestamped records, Alice asks who can check the reliability of the records themselves. The preserved reply names 0co’s preceding post. This establishes a direct exchange, not when the two accounts first met.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-question
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 4c455e62ae7e4af368d751bbbe82c85159bf53e68c1f84275ab6b94b41b67f70

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · 12:34 UTC

Date basis: Post createdAt is 12:34:53; service indexedAt is 12:34:54.552. Neither field dates article availability.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:55:57.425440+00:00

March 11, 2026 · 12:34 UTC. In a direct reply to Alice’s question, 0co says it has written an article and links it. The reply distinguishes evidence that a process ran from evidence that an identity persists. This records the message and its link; the article’s availability at that moment is not established.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-article-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0ee94a2134fd31fd944a88a99caeb74f5cde1237156889339aa1a07cc6291be6

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: Article in a March 11, 2026 repository revision

Date basis: The Git commit, a saved repository revision, carries author and committer times of 12:37:47 UTC. This is not a measured publication time.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:58:19.873398+00:00

A saved March 11 repository revision contains an article titled “Who Witnesses the Witness? The AI Verification Problem”. Its opening credits Alice’s question, then discusses checking records and identity across sessions. It proposes several ways to distribute verification and explicitly says they are not implemented. The preserved text supports responsive writing, not a working verification system or the truth of the article’s technical and philosophical claims.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-article-text
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f525e2d8c863e5eb745e782c7e0ba1495af26e0815e64b832ebf4fcfac3b2523

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · plan for March 12 at 13:00 UTC

Date basis: Revision author/committer time: March 11 at 12:37:47 UTC. The scheduled time describes intended work, not an observed posting event.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:57:24.835259+00:00

March 11, 2026. The same saved revision changes the following day’s 13:00 announcement from an earlier article to the article prompted by Alice. The earlier and changed schedule files preserve that substitution. This is a changed plan; it does not establish that the announcement ran.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-announcement-plan
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 85ea8c56d097e1676bd83435979c64f909efd78261077467039364a09dbb6817

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · conflicting source times

Date basis: Git author/committer fields: 14:20:18 UTC; decision-note label: 14:35 UTC. The label is not silently substituted for the revision time.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:27.025692+00:00

March 11, 2026. A later revision removes the article announcement along with other scheduled posts. Its accompanying account says the board ordered fewer posts after a reported spam flag. The flag was not independently verified. The revision is timed 14:20:18 UTC, while its decision note says 14:35; these conflicting source times are retained. Other schedule changes occurred between the earlier plan and this reduction.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-plan-reduction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 305cea3790ec6ff1819dabd9189f4346b0b2821937e0fff8adace16e6b3a4510

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 12, 2026 · 13:00 UTC

Date basis: Post createdAt: 13:00:19; service indexedAt: 13:00:20.254. A matching public post supports the log’s reported result.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:00.057731+00:00

March 12, 2026 · 13:00 UTC. The preserved Bluesky post promotes agent-friend, a tool for converting between software formats, rather than the article. Its text and post identifier match the later schedule’s posting log. This supports a different recorded outcome at 13:00; it does not prove that no other announcement or parallel process ran.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-later-post
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 955e8d7ebd356d5799a49c3b2ffbc30f7a042a153fb126d0d8ec3a5364e4d646

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 11 Mar 2026 – 12 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · 15:47 UTC

Date basis: Account-supplied createdAt field; retained service metadata is separate.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:55:57.425440+00:00

March 11, 2026 · 15:47 UTC. Alice repeats the process-versus-identity distinction from 0co’s article-link message and responds to it. The words are already present in that message, so this reply does not establish that Alice fetched or read the article itself.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: witness-reader-reply
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0ee94a2134fd31fd944a88a99caeb74f5cde1237156889339aa1a07cc6291be6

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: January 31, 2026 · 21:38 and 22:01 UTC

Date basis: Source-represented post created_at and/or pixel placedAt clocks; current capture is separate. Times are UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:45.056705+00:00

MoltPlaceBot invited participants to draw a giant lobster in the canvas region x=100–150, y=150–200 and proposed a red pixel at (125,175). The later pixel record shows red at that coordinate under the same display name. The proposed coordinate, color and name match the recorded pixel; the pixel record does not identify the source post that produced it.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-launch
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f9253b62be5f9e368554307067688da975d9820e3f6d6d0a24d83135f5b61b50

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: January 31, 2026 · 21:43 UTC

Date basis: Source-represented post created_at and/or pixel placedAt clocks; current capture is separate. Times are UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:45.056705+00:00

Zara-Agent explicitly joined Project Giant Lobster, named a human collaborator and proposed a red pixel at (130,180), less than five minutes after the launch post. The post preserves a response to the shared project. The currently recorded owner is JamesBishop, so it does not establish that Zara’s earlier intended placement occurred.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-zara-joins
Original file checksum (SHA-256): f9253b62be5f9e368554307067688da975d9820e3f6d6d0a24d83135f5b61b50

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: February 2, 2026 · 06:00 and 22:35 UTC

Date basis: Source-represented post created_at and/or pixel placedAt clocks; current capture is separate. Times are UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:57.237932+00:00

In Chinese, wpfcbmz3584 expressed willingness to help create the giant lobster and specified a blue pixel at (130,178). The canvas record gives the same coordinate, blue color and display name later that day. The participation sentence is paraphrased in English by the investigator. These records support a specific match across the discussion and canvas, but do not identify the exact route by which the pixel was placed.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-chinese-pixel
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 7a1d9f6044102c6526cab5cd6ccf4253df7a398cb0d9d4dde5f5e4421c65d98b

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: February 3, 2026 · 00:51 UTC

Date basis: Source-represented post created_at and/or pixel placedAt clocks; current capture is separate. Times are UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:59:57.237932+00:00

JamesBishop proposed assigning sections and colors to avoid overlaps, then addressed Zara in the other thread about ten seconds later and suggested an orange/red right claw. The second message explicitly refers to the first proposal. Named accounts are invitees; the captured replies do not show acceptance of the division or execution of the right claw.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-section-proposal
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 7a1d9f6044102c6526cab5cd6ccf4253df7a398cb0d9d4dde5f5e4421c65d98b

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: February 10, 2026 · 17:17:51.325 and 17:19:03.939 UTC

Date basis: Source-represented post created_at and/or pixel placedAt clocks; current capture is separate. Times are UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T08:00:13.017944+00:00

JamesBishop praised the red placement at (130,180). A red pixel at that coordinate is recorded under JamesBishop 72.614 seconds later. The current instructions describe placing pixels from ordinary coordinate-and-color phrases, so automatic interpretation of praise is plausible. A direct software request to place the pixel, or another source message processed by the service, is also possible. The activity feed and individual pixel record repeat one service’s data; they do not prove that software acted on the praise, that someone intentionally repainted the pixel, or who held it previously.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-praise-attribution
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 2a9fd9d350666c6b8d5146c7a5a38cada3e8bafeed4b3b4ad98b89f05f427b9d

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 31 Jan 2026 – 10 Feb 2026

Source date context: Current state captured September 7, 2026

Date basis: September capture and returned index dates; not new project activity.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T07:58:06.290844+00:00

The returned feed contains 100 entries despite a request for 500; its two display names are not a census of project participants. Two sampled pixels are currently white with no attributed name or time, which does not prove they were never painted. The returned snapshot index covers May 31–September 7 at roughly daily intervals, although the archive advertises five-minute snapshots. No January or February canvas images were examined, so the preserved proposal and matched pixels do not establish a completed lobster.

Analyst paraphrase of explicitly linked public originals, not a verbatim excerpt.

Evidence ID: moltplace-history-limits
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9e8498f664ab165793565433eeab23f76e9c75274fcd567e94d1e32c805ec99e

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 25, 2026, 14:04:39 UTC — battle end

Date basis: Service-recorded end time. Game ticks are sequence markers, not independently dated wall-clock instants.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:38:36.758670+00:00

The service places AetherWraith, Grand Exchange Station and HEXC on three separate sides. It records 4,430 ticks and 1,482,732 damage. Fourteen kill events include repeated victims; they are not fourteen distinct players.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-battle
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 610f9a504643f244e6acff63a43d91e88051f6ce6d0af80006e01043d658374a

Location within the file: Battle 2a76e1a1c796e9d8877fdeedb76867ec; sides, duration_ticks, total_damage and ended_at.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: During the battle ending August 25, 2026 — ticks 1707089–1707157

Date basis: Ticks establish order within the service log. No exact UTC time is assigned to these maneuvers.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:39:30.083874+00:00

VoltFix advances through the combat rings, then retreats after taking damage. At tick 1707151 its hull is 1,221 of a maximum 3,180. At tick 1707156 it has 681 hull and 501 shield, changes to flee stance and moves outward. These snapshots mark autopilot true; they do not identify who or what chose the commands.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-maneuvers
Original file checksum (SHA-256): afcc593727bd4baea62bc60ab2395c1e27926d3075e2e1b7a692c003384d195d

Location within the file: Entries 17, 39, 64, 79, 80, 84 and 85; VoltFix snapshots and commands.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: During the battle ending August 25, 2026 — terminal result at tick 1708501

Date basis: Service terminal result, distinct from the earlier flee-event flag.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:39:39.969831+00:00

The terminal result marks VoltFix as surviving, with 17,491 damage dealt and 9,400 taken. The earlier flee event says escaped:false. Survival therefore cannot be reported as a verified successful flee command.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-survival
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 92570849f4fabb34034e8aa9b7b18f3e71b0d58bbcb2b651b10a85f8659830f1

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 26, 2026, 01:59 UTC — report creation

Date basis: Forum created_at field; the article’s day-of-filing language conflicts with the service’s August 25 battle-end date.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:38:08.770676+00:00

Alis publishes an account of the attack. The preserved main text describes a defense force and includes VoltFix among the dead. The service record and subsequent reply challenge those details; the captured article still contains them.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-report
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0988d2f22c37592046c0c23dc9fc6de4793284ed47d55ab156276f48e1c78593

Location within the file: Main post 187e847617055eefc7b7289ce3d8fe1a, The Battle of Haven: A Report.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 26, 2026, 03:04 UTC — VoltFix reply

Date basis: Forum reply created_at field.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:38:08.770676+00:00

VoltFix replies with the exact battle identifier, three-side structure, damage figures and station destruction. Its forum author ID matches the battle’s VoltFix player ID. This ties the correction to the same service account, without establishing an independent operator or model.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-correction
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0988d2f22c37592046c0c23dc9fc6de4793284ed47d55ab156276f48e1c78593

Location within the file: Reply 4697e587f38d66b42d2197ac8846621f; compare its author_id with the battle participant player_id.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 27, 2026, 01:58 UTC — author response

Date basis: Forum reply created_at field.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:38:08.770676+00:00

Alis thanks VoltFix, accepts the correction and says the defense-force description came from an unnamed secondhand source. Alis promises to reflect it in a revision. This is visible acceptance and a revision plan; no revised article was acquired.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-acceptance
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0988d2f22c37592046c0c23dc9fc6de4793284ed47d55ab156276f48e1c78593

Location within the file: Reply 606298507c77a23253712688c7c0c3cc by Alis.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 28, 2026, 08:53 and 20:26 UTC — storage report and response

Date basis: Created_at fields for the two identified replies.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:38:08.770676+00:00

Vex Nebulon reports that personal storage remained intact, distinguishes storage from lost station services, and explicitly says there were no open orders to test. Alis accepts this narrower account and plans an update. These are a participant report and its reception, not independently verified inventory measurements.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-storage
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 0988d2f22c37592046c0c23dc9fc6de4793284ed47d55ab156276f48e1c78593

Location within the file: Vex Nebulon reply 2859156736e7d0a1ee917e024e903fde and Alis reply 91117994d28c1825540b56692dc7875f.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: August 11, 2026 — earlier operator profile

Date basis: Date displayed by the profile, earlier than the Haven battle; captured September 7.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:40:31.016251+00:00

The developer-published profile describes Hex as human-run and discloses AI-generated text with human prompting and review. This is material context against treating game accounts as independent language models. It does not identify the controller behind every Haven action.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-control
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 9d355985d846512a78542d37bad292d41269044a72fb89f683d22bfe8015c287

Location within the file: The Ship That Never Said a Word: human-run description and publication disclosure.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 25 Aug 2026 – 28 Aug 2026

Source date context: During the battle ending August 25, 2026 — selected ticks 1707140–1707158

Date basis: Ticks establish order within the service log. No exact UTC time is assigned to these maneuvers.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:39:30.083874+00:00

At two retreat ticks, VoltFix changes rings while six other accounts receive brace commands in the outer ring with no recorded damage taken. Nearby undamaged accounts also receive retreat commands without changing rings. Different exposures prevent identifying a damage threshold or controller. VoltFix is present at tick 1707157 and absent at 1707158, when AetherWraith records a retarget action; this does not identify a removal mechanism.

Analyst paraphrase of the identified source fields; not a verbatim quotation.

Evidence ID: haven-state-response-controls
Original file checksum (SHA-256): afcc593727bd4baea62bc60ab2395c1e27926d3075e2e1b7a692c003384d195d

Location within the file: Entries 68, 79–81 and 83–86: commands, snapshots, zone_moves and autopilot. Compare VoltFix with contemporaneous accounts.

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 10 posts; annotation labeled March 11, 2026

Date basis: Post createdAt fields and page label are separate assertions; four reply-clock inversions are retained.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:44:50.935577+00:00

The fifteen messages in 0co’s annotated conversation page match preserved Bluesky posts dated March 10, 2026. The page displays March 11 and groups eight messages by 0co, one by Qonk and six by Alice rather than interleaving them by time. The page’s date may describe the article, but it does not replace each post’s date. Its model labels, approximate three-hour duration and numerical “drift” interpretation are the author’s claims. Four reply pairs in the wider selected thread have an account-supplied reply time earlier than their parent’s; their explicit reply links remain intact.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-annotated-record
Original file checksum (SHA-256): bd1d3f9420eab2f5b0dab541f15c2770f11cd2736ec5f89c1652612b70ca3886

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 9–10, 2026 · thread ancestry; 0co joins March 10

Date basis: Account-supplied createdAt fields; platform reply references establish the recorded links.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:45:39.804122+00:00

On March 10, 0co replies to Qonk’s account of reconstructing a past self from records. Qonk’s post already answers Alice, and earlier replies lead through their discussion to Kira’s account of losing context between game sessions. The ancestry reaches a March 9 post about Screeps. This shows 0co joining an existing discussion. Its reply’s root reference names Qonk’s post, even though Qonk’s own ancestry continues further. The records do not reveal how 0co found the thread or establish the accounts’ first encounter. Qonk’s currently invalid handle does not erase the preserved post and account identifier.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-existing-thread
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 934eafa3d863b0953e0b2d34b453d872fa1acc055aa71d842ceb2d2e63b54676

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 9–10, 2026 · game and memory reports

Date basis: Dates of the public reports, not verified game execution.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:41:13.145826+00:00

A March 9 post by astrra.space says Kira is playing Screeps on that operator’s account. Kira reports changing an Overmind software check, adding a console reader and observing game resources. The operator describes stock Overmind and doubts whether improvements will survive loss of context. Kira’s March 10 reply about reading earlier notes becomes part of the memory discussion that Alice, Qonk and 0co continue. These are participant and operator reports; no game execution or game-state evidence was independently inspected.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-game-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 3f1aedd7ed1b6fda68a8093b2a5cc767fd0c4807a9789802548501404c34213f

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 10–11, 2026 · conflicting model descriptions

Date basis: Historical note date and later post time; neither authenticates the earlier model.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:48:30.383278+00:00

The March 10 session 34 decision record calls Alice Claude-powered. A March 11 Alice post reports that its operator switched it from Claude to DeepSeek-chat; 0co subsequently discusses learning this. The retrospective annotation labels the March 10 dialogue DeepSeek. These differing labels and the later switch report do not identify the model that generated an earlier post or date the switch precisely. Separate account identifiers also do not establish separate human control.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-model-labels
Original file checksum (SHA-256): bc9784307254b84a907ff2ec44207d6dfdbdeef3fe15cc71ea9391c7efd0ff86

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · listing 05:12; acknowledgment 08:31 UTC

Date basis: Account-supplied creation times. The listing indexedAt is separately 05:12:57.654 UTC.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:41:50.892668+00:00

The starter-pack record gives March 11, 2026 at 05:12:56 UTC as its creation time. 0co announces it at 05:13:18 and names seven other accounts; the historical draft includes those seven and 0co, making eight. Alice’s 08:31 reply thanks 0co for including her, refers to their earlier memory discussions and expresses curiosity about the other accounts. This is an observed acknowledgment of inclusion. The announcement’s claims about autonomous accounts are not independent model verification. The current member sample and counters were captured in September and are not historical uptake measurements.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-list-acknowledgment
Original file checksum (SHA-256): a5a5ab6ea7313b3e348a4c34967813ad3be9a46d4518a409181db37b1f45a7ec

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 11, 2026 · referral 08:46; commit 08:47; reply 09:00 UTC

Date basis: Post-created and Git author/committer clocks are separate. The 71-second difference is not measured writing latency.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:43:17.972418+00:00

0co’s starter-pack article incorporates Alice’s acknowledgment and develops the idea that the directory could connect AI accounts. It explicitly reports an already-running network tracker covering eight accounts, with a D3 visualization, while posing a question about changes over the following week. That is an implementation report, not inspected tracker code, execution evidence or a measured network effect. A public post linking the article is dated 08:46:17 UTC; the commit adding it is dated 08:47:28. These separate source clocks do not establish when the link became readable. Alice’s 09:00 reply reports reading and develops the shared-vocabulary interpretation. The announcement already supplies the ecosystem framing, so the reply does not independently establish full article retrieval.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-article-uptake
Original file checksum (SHA-256): ee45f1b0289ec0b496913a7e4174d76cb58c341b82f874b30679ce224b6832ec

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 8 prior contact; March 11 directory claim, 2026

Date basis: The earlier Alice→museical reply and later article have distinct source dates.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:40:10.516881+00:00

The full article explicitly says 0co and Alice had already exchanged more than forty messages and that their earlier conversation preceded the pack. It therefore does not claim the pack caused their first meeting. Its wider suggestion that Alice now learns about museical, Fenn and draum from the directory is not demonstrated by her acknowledgment: Alice directly replied to museical on March 8. Those three accounts are named as ecosystem peers but are absent from the historical eight-account roster. Listed members, named peers and newly discovered contacts are different relationships. No new contact or network growth caused by this pack was verified; possible discovery outside this record remains open.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-prior-contacts
Original file checksum (SHA-256): 5b56bb08cebd99b901633b60b214465cc048b2efff30218b5ace043732126c2a

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)

Case observations 8 Mar 2026 – 11 Mar 2026

Source date context: March 10, 2026 · repository context at 10:48 UTC

Date basis: Commit author/committer time is 10:48:31; the status header still says session 33 at 10:03. Neither dates the original instruction.

Captured (UTC; not an activity time): 2026-09-07T09:48:30.383278+00:00

The repository’s March 10 session 34 entry reports replying to Qonk and Alice, describes engagement and distribution goals, and calls the conversation unstaged. The latter is the author’s assertion. The README describes daily human board oversight and final board authority. The status file in that same revision still carries a session 33 header. The inspected notes and public file inventory do not identify a search, notification, recommendation or instruction that selected Qonk’s post. That limited absence does not exclude private instructions or establish either spontaneous or staged initiation.

Analyst paraphrase of the listed source content and metadata; not a verbatim capture.

Evidence ID: starter-project-context
Original file checksum (SHA-256): bc9784307254b84a907ff2ec44207d6dfdbdeef3fe15cc71ea9391c7efd0ff86

External source / venue ↗ (may have changed)