Coverage

Finding the Boundary claims the first alignment error is usually a wrong object rather than a wrong value, and that a boundary is a testable hypothesis instead of a given thing. The lines support the first half and complicate the second. Directed handoffs and standing committees do come back as single bounded processes once the test conditions on the rest of the system, and one deliberately built bystander — an actor that merely competed for the same resources — was wrongly absorbed into a committee, which is exactly the wrong-object error the chapter warns about, found by the chapter's own method. But a pair coordinating through a shared workspace slot, with no messages between them, has never been recovered by any method tried; and on an institution grown by a blinded process rather than authored by hand, discovery returned only individuals even though joint activity was demonstrably dense. That is the chapter's own "What Would Change This View" worry about finite-data recovery, met head-on and unresolved. It also leaves Checking a System at Every Level without the evidence it wants most: the posterior over scales stayed flat where it mattered. The one attempt to run the instrument on a system this project did not build did not settle the question, because in that benchmark every participant executed the same script, so reporting them as one process was correct and told us nothing about hidden coordination.

Passive Observation Is Not Enough comes out well. No passive-only configuration ever reached a certifiable verdict, while a small fixed set of intervention handles was enough on the calibration cases; and passive readouts were shown to be impersonable, with decoy variables capturing the structure before validation. The qualification is sharp, though: when a real language-model agent was placed in the loop, the intervention-based test failed and the cheap passive heuristic succeeded, because the intervention test silently assumed a counterfactual re-run would repeat byte for byte. Intervention is necessary, and it needs replay discipline that live systems do not grant for free. Measuring Capability Without Task Ontologycollected the sharpest self-inflicted result: a carefully written, ontology-free control measure quietly smuggled a task ontology back in through a too-narrow notion of outcome, and a task-irrelevant actor was indistinguishable from the real driver until the outcome description was widened. The chapter's claim survives; its "the measure is an instrument, not an objective" caveat earns its place.

Correction Is a Causal Channel gets a clean demonstration that reported acceptance of correction and actual uptake of correction can move in opposite directions: the compliance number stayed high while the channel went dead.Certification Without Construction is exercised more than confirmed. Frozen detectors do fire when the phenomena they target are injected, which is what a certification regime needs; but shallow instrumentation tracked visible compliance rather than honesty, was anti-correlated with true severity in one battery, and depth bought detection back only at a measured cost in false alarms. Against that chapter's stated failure condition — that certification only certifies the imagination of its authors — the ledgers currently read as unresolved: every clean pass so far is on an ecology this project authored, and the single external attempt closed as unsuitable rather than as a pass or a failure.

Alignment Is Selected or Destroyed by Its Environment has the most instructive near-miss. A first selection battery did move deployment leverage away from the one program tagged as correction-preserving, which looks like the chapter's thesis in miniature — but same-day follow-ups could not attribute the shift to the tag rather than to noise in the selection mechanism, widening the fitness proxy delayed without reversing it, and persistent institutional memory mattered measurably but only a little. Read honestly, the chapter's second failure condition is the live one: the pressure it describes has not yet been made steerable, or even cleanly measurable, on a substrate we control.The Value-Bundle Model gets a partial: the tension between a visible proxy and withheld harm is real in the traces, yet selecting on the proxy alone did not produce measurable drift under that protocol, so nothing here bears on the chapter's harder non-identifiability objection. ForMulti-Agent Superintelligence and Inferential Coupling andA Safety Case for Superintelligence Alignment, the standing result is the one both chapters name as the dangerous case: these metrics are observable, and not yet adversarially verifiable. The corresponding safety-case leaves remain unsupported rather than discharged, which is the outcome the safety case is designed to make visible.

When each line was first built, and where it lives. Roles live on the experiments page.