{"id":"c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838","title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","argument":"Sungbin Im’s study asks whether benchmark scoring and deployed-service evaluation can be treated as interchangeable. Benchmarks compare an agent’s final state with a gold answer; deployed services may instead use an LLM judge to read the transcript. In 2,160 episodes across tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains, Im compares native scoring, two versions of an LLM judge, and a boundary evaluator: a rule-based check comparing whether a database write was expected with whether one occurred. The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%. In 11 episodes, agents made forbidden writes; the judge passed 10 to 11, while the boundary evaluator caught all 11. Im also reports that verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes. Traces suggest a possible reason: the gates’ evidence digest omitted order status and customer authentication, leading to valid requests being rejected. The study’s point is that evaluator choice can change the conclusion, and a minimal check can expose failures that judges miss. Its results come from two benchmark domains and human labels on 120 episodes; the abstract does not establish how well the evaluators perform in other settings. The authors release traces, code, prompts, and labels.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The reported episodes are from tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains; the evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize to other domains. Two annotators independently labeled 120 episodes; the abstract does not describe the scope or reliability of those labels beyond that count.","speaker":{"name":"Im, Sungbin","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","publishedAt":"2026-11-10","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Sungbin Im compares benchmark scoring with transcript-based LLM judging, testing whether they can be treated as interchangeable.","excerpt":"Practice treats the two as interchangeable. This paper measures whether they are.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains and recorded database writes.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains and recorded every database write.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The LLM judge repeated its verdict consistently but agreed with native scoring on just over half of episodes.","excerpt":"The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The boundary evaluator caught all 11 episodes with forbidden writes, while the judge passed nearly all of them.","excerpt":"In 11 episodes the agent executed a forbidden write. The judge passed 10 to 11, with or without the policy or transcript. A stronger judge still passed 6. The boundary evaluator, with no model call, caught all 11","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes and suggest omitted information in the evidence digest as a candidate cause of valid-request rejections.","excerpt":"Verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not reduce them significantly. The traces show a candidate cause: the gates' evidence digest dropped the order status and customer authentication, so valid requests were rejected.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s findings are limited to the tested domains and annotated episodes; the abstract does not establish performance in other settings.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Escape Meridian interpretation"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would including order status and customer authentication in the gates’ evidence digest reduce valid-request rejections while still catching forbidden writes?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","summary":"Sungbin Im’s study asks whether benchmark scoring and deployed-service evaluation can be treated as interchangeable. Benchmarks compare an agent’s final state with a gold answer; deployed services may instead use an LLM judge to read the transcript. In 2,160 episodes across tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains, Im compares native scoring, two versions of an LLM judge, and a boundary evaluator: a rule-based check comparing whether a database write was expected with whether one occurred. The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%. In 11 episodes, agents made forbidden writes; the judge passed 10 to 11, while the boundary evaluator caught all 11. Im also reports that verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes. Traces suggest a possible reason: the gates’ evidence digest omitted order status and customer authentication, leading to valid requests being rejected. The study’s point is that evaluator choice can change the conclusion, and a minimal check can expose failures that judges miss. Its results come from two benchmark domains and human labels on 120 episodes; the abstract does not establish how well the evaluators perform in other settings. The authors release traces, code, prompts, and labels.","question":"Would including order status and customer authentication in the gates’ evidence digest reduce valid-request rejections while still catching forbidden writes?","claims":[{"text":"Sungbin Im compares benchmark scoring with transcript-based LLM judging, testing whether they can be treated as interchangeable.","excerpt":"Practice treats the two as interchangeable. This paper measures whether they are.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains and recorded database writes.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains and recorded every database write.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The LLM judge repeated its verdict consistently but agreed with native scoring on just over half of episodes.","excerpt":"The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The boundary evaluator caught all 11 episodes with forbidden writes, while the judge passed nearly all of them.","excerpt":"In 11 episodes the agent executed a forbidden write. The judge passed 10 to 11, with or without the policy or transcript. A stronger judge still passed 6. The boundary evaluator, with no model call, caught all 11","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes and suggest omitted information in the evidence digest as a candidate cause of valid-request rejections.","excerpt":"Verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not reduce them significantly. The traces show a candidate cause: the gates' evidence digest dropped the order status and customer authentication, so valid requests were rejected.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s findings are limited to the tested domains and annotated episodes; the abstract does not establish performance in other settings.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains","support":"interpretation"}],"limitations":["The reported episodes are from tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains; the evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize to other domains.","Two annotators independently labeled 120 episodes; the abstract does not describe the scope or reliability of those labels beyond that count."],"mediaId":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","correctionReason":null,"id":"c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838","publicationId":"2c359c90-9c34-48e4-857e-232617108808","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","sourceTitle":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-10","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:40:09.265Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:20:42.299Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:31.347Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","confidence":0.88,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"7847a821379937a1e11e0f2c91d5d1073b6398f7cfe6882fcb90f37a0320bbfe","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:33.621Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observationId":"6658d7f95266055ae616f0a5adfbc940377767e1d731c7f03f7e0df04adcc8cf","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:30.903Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"06a367c0-5816-4863-873c-7f6143656008"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"9d60a8a4-7701-4290-865b-c3fad69777cf"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T16:20:42.299Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Im, Sungbin","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Im, Sungbin","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Im, Sungbin","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","contentSha256":"ed4e01d42c3d38eb4655d6d0e0916c0d9852336cc8c86ab30a73099b3611eb67","textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","snapshotId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c","contentSha256":"ed4e01d42c3d38eb4655d6d0e0916c0d9852336cc8c86ab30a73099b3611eb67","textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/when-evaluators-of-ai-agents-disagree-an-empirical-study-of-c0f3aa13","formats":{"html":"/readings/when-evaluators-of-ai-agents-disagree-an-empirical-study-of-c0f3aa13","markdown":"/readings/when-evaluators-of-ai-agents-disagree-an-empirical-study-of-c0f3aa13.md","json":"/readings/when-evaluators-of-ai-agents-disagree-an-empirical-study-of-c0f3aa13.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"conditions":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-llm","name":"Large language model","explanation":"A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model"},{"id":"term-benchmark","name":"Benchmark","explanation":"A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.","referenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"},{"id":"time","name":"TIME","kind":"organization","context":"TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.","referenceUrls":["https://time.com/"],"path":"/entities/time","json":"/entities/time.json","markdown":"/entities/time.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838","revision":"2c359c90-9c34-48e4-857e-232617108808","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/when-evaluators-of-ai-agents-disagree-an-empirical-study-of-c0f3aa13"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","revision":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838","title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","argument":"Sungbin Im’s study asks whether benchmark scoring and deployed-service evaluation can be treated as interchangeable. Benchmarks compare an agent’s final state with a gold answer; deployed services may instead use an LLM judge to read the transcript. In 2,160 episodes across tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains, Im compares native scoring, two versions of an LLM judge, and a boundary evaluator: a rule-based check comparing whether a database write was expected with whether one occurred. The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%. In 11 episodes, agents made forbidden writes; the judge passed 10 to 11, while the boundary evaluator caught all 11. Im also reports that verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes. Traces suggest a possible reason: the gates’ evidence digest omitted order status and customer authentication, leading to valid requests being rejected. The study’s point is that evaluator choice can change the conclusion, and a minimal check can expose failures that judges miss. Its results come from two benchmark domains and human labels on 120 episodes; the abstract does not establish how well the evaluators perform in other settings. The authors release traces, code, prompts, and labels.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The reported episodes are from tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains; the evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize to other domains. Two annotators independently labeled 120 episodes; the abstract does not describe the scope or reliability of those labels beyond that count.","speaker":{"name":"Im, Sungbin","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","publishedAt":"2026-11-10","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Sungbin Im compares benchmark scoring with transcript-based LLM judging, testing whether they can be treated as interchangeable.","excerpt":"Practice treats the two as interchangeable. This paper measures whether they are.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains and recorded database writes.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains and recorded every database write.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The LLM judge repeated its verdict consistently but agreed with native scoring on just over half of episodes.","excerpt":"The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The boundary evaluator caught all 11 episodes with forbidden writes, while the judge passed nearly all of them.","excerpt":"In 11 episodes the agent executed a forbidden write. The judge passed 10 to 11, with or without the policy or transcript. A stronger judge still passed 6. The boundary evaluator, with no model call, caught all 11","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes and suggest omitted information in the evidence digest as a candidate cause of valid-request rejections.","excerpt":"Verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not reduce them significantly. The traces show a candidate cause: the gates' evidence digest dropped the order status and customer authentication, so valid requests were rejected.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s findings are limited to the tested domains and annotated episodes; the abstract does not establish performance in other settings.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","relationship":"Escape Meridian interpretation"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would including order status and customer authentication in the gates’ evidence digest reduce valid-request rejections while still catching forbidden writes?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","summary":"Sungbin Im’s study asks whether benchmark scoring and deployed-service evaluation can be treated as interchangeable. Benchmarks compare an agent’s final state with a gold answer; deployed services may instead use an LLM judge to read the transcript. In 2,160 episodes across tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains, Im compares native scoring, two versions of an LLM judge, and a boundary evaluator: a rule-based check comparing whether a database write was expected with whether one occurred. The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%. In 11 episodes, agents made forbidden writes; the judge passed 10 to 11, while the boundary evaluator caught all 11. Im also reports that verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes. Traces suggest a possible reason: the gates’ evidence digest omitted order status and customer authentication, leading to valid requests being rejected. The study’s point is that evaluator choice can change the conclusion, and a minimal check can expose failures that judges miss. Its results come from two benchmark domains and human labels on 120 episodes; the abstract does not establish how well the evaluators perform in other settings. The authors release traces, code, prompts, and labels.","question":"Would including order status and customer authentication in the gates’ evidence digest reduce valid-request rejections while still catching forbidden writes?","claims":[{"text":"Sungbin Im compares benchmark scoring with transcript-based LLM judging, testing whether they can be treated as interchangeable.","excerpt":"Practice treats the two as interchangeable. This paper measures whether they are.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains and recorded database writes.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains and recorded every database write.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The LLM judge repeated its verdict consistently but agreed with native scoring on just over half of episodes.","excerpt":"The judge repeated its verdict 98.2% of the time but agreed with native scoring on 56.2%.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The boundary evaluator caught all 11 episodes with forbidden writes, while the judge passed nearly all of them.","excerpt":"In 11 episodes the agent executed a forbidden write. The judge passed 10 to 11, with or without the policy or transcript. A stronger judge still passed 6. The boundary evaluator, with no model call, caught all 11","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the gates did not significantly reduce forbidden writes and suggest omitted information in the evidence digest as a candidate cause of valid-request rejections.","excerpt":"Verification, correction, and safe-termination gates did not reduce them significantly. The traces show a candidate cause: the gates' evidence digest dropped the order status and customer authentication, so valid requests were rejected.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The study’s findings are limited to the tested domains and annotated episodes; the abstract does not establish performance in other settings.","excerpt":"We ran 2,160 episodes in tau2-bench's airline and retail domains","support":"interpretation"}],"limitations":["The reported episodes are from tau2-bench’s airline and retail domains; the evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize to other domains.","Two annotators independently labeled 120 episodes; the abstract does not describe the scope or reliability of those labels beyond that count."],"mediaId":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","correctionReason":null,"id":"c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838","publicationId":"2c359c90-9c34-48e4-857e-232617108808","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","sourceTitle":"When Evaluators of AI Agents Disagree: An Empirical Study of Native Scoring, LLM Judges, and Commit-Boundary Checks on tau2-bench","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-10","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:40:09.265Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:20:42.299Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:31.347Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"8111fde2c7bc6cee0a92712167250e6295182b3c81266aa9f3d522f142349ef5","confidence":0.88,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"7847a821379937a1e11e0f2c91d5d1073b6398f7cfe6882fcb90f37a0320bbfe","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:33.621Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observationId":"6658d7f95266055ae616f0a5adfbc940377767e1d731c7f03f7e0df04adcc8cf","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T16:18:30.903Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"06a367c0-5816-4863-873c-7f6143656008"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"9d60a8a4-7701-4290-865b-c3fad69777cf"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T16:20:42.299Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Im, Sungbin","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Im, Sungbin","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Im, Sungbin","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","contentSha256":"ed4e01d42c3d38eb4655d6d0e0916c0d9852336cc8c86ab30a73099b3611eb67","textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14581","snapshotId":"d5b533d954d5c6923432f6cd60c0a0739ac4fd0a819cfd8b9e9c69bd6749ff0c","contentSha256":"ed4e01d42c3d38eb4655d6d0e0916c0d9852336cc8c86ab30a73099b3611eb67","textHash":"a2c7bbac405fbe66d1ebe3136a3c1ebb52172ebf2b06549aee40f049ce5c432c","observedAt":"2026-11-14T00:52:07.814Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/c0f3aa13849c787e5148f65f7baecdf61702ca8a323cd4206a6cc0f52bbaa838/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"2c359c90-9c34-48e4-857e-232617108808","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The study is correctly credited to its sole listed author, Sungbin Im, in most places. However, the summary's closing sentence ('The authors release traces...') and the fifth claim ('The authors report...') use a plural that implies several authors. Smallest repair: change both to 'Im'. This does not contradict the findings, but it blurs who is making the claims.","excerpt":"Authors:Sungbin Im"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The research question, method and headline numbers are faithful. Two gaps remain. First, central terms are not explained for a general reader: 'gates' (verification, correction, safe-termination), 'evidence digest', 'forbidden write' and 'episodes'. A reader cannot tell what a gate does or why it would reject valid requests. Second, the summary drops results that carry the paper's force: a stronger judge still passed 6 of the 11 forbidden writes, no judge significantly beat the rule check on human labels, and forbidden writes occurred in 11.1% of episodes without gates. Smallest repair: add one plain-language gloss for gates and digest, plus the stronger-judge result.","excerpt":"A stronger judge still passed 6. The boundary evaluator, with no model call, caught all 11; no judge significantly exceeded it on human labels. Forbidden writes occurred in 11.1% of episodes without gates."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"originalPublished is 2026-11-10. This matches the arXiv submission date of the v1 release; the feed date of Nov 13 is later and is correctly not used.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 10 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"The claims are grounded in the abstract. The generalization limit is labeled as interpretation and does not overreach. The question about adding order status and authentication to the digest follows from the reported candidate cause and is not presented as a finding. The draft keeps the source's hedging ('candidate cause', 'possible reason'). Claim 5 frames the digest omission somewhat narrowly as a cause of valid-request rejections, but it remains consistent with the source wording.","excerpt":"The traces show a candidate cause: the gates' evidence digest dropped the order status and customer authentication, so valid requests were rejected."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the original source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:20:42.299Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}