| # Benchmark validity summary |
|
|
| ## Findings |
|
|
| 1. The benchmark measures distinct capabilities, but discrimination is uneven: |
| 25 of 40 scenarios are tied under the current scored outcomes. |
| 2. Belief revision and historical reconstruction meaningfully separate typed |
| lineage from simpler baselines. Many straightforward categories remain tied. |
| 3. No expected-answer fields are available during blind strategy execution. |
| 4. The baseline audit found the prior full-Scenario input contract was too |
| permissive; it is now replaced with `StrategyInput`. |
| 5. The shared v0.1.0 0.975 score was one fixture/evaluator alignment defect, |
| not evidence of universal strategy equivalence. |
| 6. Several metrics remain `not_applicable` because the current fixtures do not |
| instantiate their denominators. This is reported, not converted to success. |
| 7. The conflicting-authority fixtures now expect explicit abstention where |
| authority remains unresolved. |
|
|
| ## Version decision |
|
|
| Scenario labels and strategy semantics changed to correct documented validity |
| defects, so this audit is benchmark v0.2.0. v0.1.0 fixtures and reports remain |
| available unchanged under the frozen directories. |
|
|
| ## Supported claims |
|
|
| Within these synthetic fixtures, typed lineage supports point-in-time |
| reconstruction and authority-aware supersession. Simpler strategies remain |
| competitive on ordinary current-state questions. |
|
|
| ## Unsupported claims |
|
|
| No claim of real-world memory accuracy, production privacy, complete erasure, |
| human-like memory, universal belief revision, or superiority over other memory |
| systems is supported. |
|
|
