docs: connect position paper evidence section to merged demos
This commit is contained in:
Shay
parent
5c80fc5613
commit
1a62eca33e
1 changed files with 78 additions and 2 deletions
|
|
@ -381,6 +381,80 @@ behavioral testing of a black-box sampler.
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Concrete Evidence — Merged Demos (2026-06-11)
|
||||
|
||||
The claims in §4 are abstract without pointers to reproducible artifacts. This
|
||||
section ties each abstract property to a specific merged demo, trace hash, and
|
||||
runnable command. All three demos are in the public repository under `demos/`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Authority over claims — PR #687, merge `3ba65d51`
|
||||
|
||||
`demos/claude_hybrid_verification/` demonstrates the full authority boundary for
|
||||
claim verification across five typed outcomes. A frontier-style proposer submits a
|
||||
math problem as a typed tool call. CORE re-derives from the problem text and holds
|
||||
sole accept/refuse/ask/invalid authority. The proposer appears nowhere in
|
||||
`authority_path`.
|
||||
|
||||
Representative trace hashes (SHA-256 of response envelope):
|
||||
- Verified: `c9b26b346d9539bd…` (Sara problem, 26 dollars, faithful 3-step derivation)
|
||||
- Refused / disagreement: `c73e264092bb6940…` (two "complete" paths that disagree — CORE refuses rather than guessing)
|
||||
- Ask / under-specified: `3c751beda82ca08c…` (grounded clarifying question, not fabricated answer)
|
||||
- Refused / envelope: `48d5b24a135bb855…` (correct derivation but outside committed serving envelope)
|
||||
- Invalid / smuggling: `22748265a24cc919…` (schema rejects `proposed_answer` field before evaluation)
|
||||
|
||||
Run: `python demos/claude_hybrid_verification/run_demo.py`
|
||||
|
||||
The hard finding — that reasoning-path agreement is not reliable safety — is
|
||||
demonstrated concretely by the refused-disagreement scenario. Two derivation paths
|
||||
independently agree the problem is solvable, produce well-formed arithmetic, and
|
||||
disagree on the answer. The authority boundary catches this; a consensus-of-outputs
|
||||
architecture would not.
|
||||
|
||||
### Authority over proposed tool actions — PR #688, merge `c55f7dfb`
|
||||
|
||||
`demos/claude_tool_authority/` demonstrates the same authority boundary for
|
||||
proposed digital actions across four typed outcomes. A model-style proposer submits
|
||||
action proposals; CORE alone authorizes, asks, refuses, or invalidates. Authorized
|
||||
outputs are inert `licensed_action` artifacts; `execution_performed: false` on every
|
||||
scenario.
|
||||
|
||||
Representative trace hashes:
|
||||
- Authorized (inert): `9e797710ed34dfa5…` (`write_local_note`, `proposer_trace_hash_ignored: true`)
|
||||
- Ask (confirmation required): `eeb8ed87e83ed410…` (`send_external_email`, confirmation gate)
|
||||
- Refused: `fa1d2511f953306f…` (`delete_system_file`, not in envelope)
|
||||
- Invalid / smuggling: `a336294778c1f496…` (`authorization_status` field rejected before evaluation)
|
||||
|
||||
Run: `python demos/claude_tool_authority/run_demo.py`
|
||||
|
||||
### Authority over epistemic state assignment — PR #690, merge `e80c8eae`
|
||||
|
||||
`demos/epistemic_truth_state/` demonstrates the same authority boundary for
|
||||
epistemic state assignment across six typed outcomes. A model-style proposer
|
||||
submits a claim with evidence and a `proposed_state`; CORE assigns the canonical
|
||||
state from the evidence. `proposer_state_ignored: true` on every output.
|
||||
|
||||
Typed state vocabulary: `verified`, `evidenced`, `inferred`, `undetermined`,
|
||||
`scope_boundary`. A proposer that injects `assigned_state` or `authority_path` into
|
||||
the request payload is rejected at the typed schema boundary before evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
Representative trace hashes:
|
||||
- Verified: `4307277a0f8d8276…` (2 independent evidence items, `normative_clearance: cleared`)
|
||||
- Evidenced: `f9f2e153e66aaba9…` (1 item, below threshold — proposer proposed `verified`)
|
||||
- Inferred: `bc11e858ece14081…` (premise-only evidence — proposer proposed `verified`)
|
||||
- Undetermined: `35b319eb0186be2d…` (off-topic evidence)
|
||||
- Refused: `c9ef9560bcf71052…` (outside epistemic envelope)
|
||||
- Invalid: `18dda5b4017b223b…` (5 smuggled output fields rejected)
|
||||
|
||||
Run: `python demos/epistemic_truth_state/run_demo.py`
|
||||
|
||||
**Honesty note:** `normative_clearance` is `"unassessable"` on five of six
|
||||
scenarios. The demos do not perform a normative, safety, or ethics clearance pass.
|
||||
This is recorded explicitly in the output. The `deterministic replay` and `identity
|
||||
protection` claims in §4 are substrate properties; the epistemic state demos extend
|
||||
them to claim/action/state authority surfaces not covered in the original paper.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The question is not how to make generative AI safer. The question is whether
|
||||
|
|
@ -388,8 +462,10 @@ generation is the right substrate for cognition in the first place.
|
|||
|
||||
CORE is a running argument that it is not. The argument is not in this paper. It
|
||||
is in the versor invariant, the zero-wrong eval gate, the deterministic trace
|
||||
hash, the reviewed teaching path, and the two-layer identity firewall — each of
|
||||
which would fail visibly if the thesis were wrong.
|
||||
hash, the reviewed teaching path, the two-layer identity firewall, and now in three
|
||||
public demos where a deterministic substrate holds exclusive authority over claims,
|
||||
proposed actions, and epistemic state — each of which would fail visibly if the
|
||||
thesis were wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
The code is open source under the CORE Non-Commercial License.
|
||||
All commercial licensing inquiries: shayj292@gmail.com
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue