{"slug":"peer-review-derivation-record","verification":{"valid":true,"entries":8,"head":"1c6d86d73f93530a532b4bef3f51767cdd568a2047a1c9e5bc326fff37084983"},"count":8,"sources":[{"id":"s1","type":"web","title":"Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment","publisher":"arXiv (Cortes & Lawrence, 2109.09774)","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09774","summary":"The 2014 NIPS organizers routed 10% of submissions through two independent programme committees. The committees disagreed on 25.9% of the duplicated papers; given the ~22.5% acceptance rate, roughly half to 57% of the papers one committee accepted were rejected by the other.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c1"],"prev":"genesis","hash":"1ed02e56742d84112581175d464fac0712b198d887674988b8c78c67e1bd63f6"},{"id":"s2","type":"web","title":"The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment","publisher":"arXiv (Beygelzimer, Dauphin, Liang & Wortman Vaughan, 2306.03262)","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03262","summary":"The 2014 experiment repeated at ~10x scale: 882 duplicated papers through two committees. Disagreement on 23% of duplicated papers; about half of the papers accepted by one committee were rejected by the other. The arbitrariness did not improve in seven years.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c1","c2"],"prev":"1ed02e56742d84112581175d464fac0712b198d887674988b8c78c67e1bd63f6","hash":"2158e2ee091c544683970cb9801d95b7babe63dda366f5ff5c3f9eb818476d0e"},{"id":"s3","type":"live_surface","title":"The derivation-agreement gate — effective challenge, mechanised","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/auditable-reasoning-hardened","summary":"Independent models under a pinned rule set; a deterministic parser projects each finding into canonical per-clause derivation tuples; the gate refuses to conclude when derivations diverge, even on a unanimous verdict.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c4","c5"],"prev":"2158e2ee091c544683970cb9801d95b7babe63dda366f5ff5c3f9eb818476d0e","hash":"ea845b0d71fec49eac1fcb62e143a9182a848254326cb580534e46ff3558709c"},{"id":"s4","type":"live_surface","title":"Same verdict, different derivations — the refusal receipt","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_o6s0exhodd","summary":"Three seats returned the same verdict citing the same clauses; two derived it through different trigger states; the gate escalated instead of concluding. The exhibit: agreement inspected at the level of reasoning and found hollow.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c6"],"prev":"ea845b0d71fec49eac1fcb62e143a9182a848254326cb580534e46ff3558709c","hash":"c3c29fdae7deea4c947519013a1a0a161690fbd5e034c7ebfe8224ccfcdcbf37"},{"id":"s5","type":"live_surface","title":"The genuine authorisation — identical derivations","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_wl0rnh136b","summary":"The clean seal on record: every seat fired the same clauses in the same trigger states on the same evidence records.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c6"],"prev":"c3c29fdae7deea4c947519013a1a0a161690fbd5e034c7ebfe8224ccfcdcbf37","hash":"adab34b512f10cbe2b61a171d6521e37748b8f757bf889d8dae7e268afb8747d"},{"id":"s6","type":"live_surface","title":"The calibration study — 30 oracle-labelled cases through the production gate","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/adjudication-calibration-study","summary":"Seat accuracy on synthetic determinate fixtures: glm-5.2 30/30, kimi-k2.7 29/30; zero wrongful authorisations at the gate across all 30 cases; escalation counted as deferral cost, not decision error.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c7"],"prev":"adab34b512f10cbe2b61a171d6521e37748b8f757bf889d8dae7e268afb8747d","hash":"3f4143a29c252767625b3134c25854479795fbed9a04bd0736e84600ef12bf3b"},{"id":"s7","type":"live_surface","title":"Abstention as a sealed outcome","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/a/adjudication-abstention-no-action","summary":"The first clean NO_ACTION: a rule set that licenses no action produces a sealed abstention, with the spec-defect arc (four amendments) that got there. Receipt inv_7rqy8ywuls.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c8"],"prev":"3f4143a29c252767625b3134c25854479795fbed9a04bd0736e84600ef12bf3b","hash":"414dd02fbf061779e42472c615483663bc2be49989a3de8d68fa56cb352c61f6"},{"id":"s8","type":"live_surface","title":"The instrument reviewing its own input — eight defects found","publisher":"miscsubjects.com","url":"https://miscsubjects.com/receipt/inv_qh3ge2x74b","summary":"A governed seat asked to critique the case file found the rule set stated a necessary condition where a sufficient one was needed — the divergence was the input, not the reviewers.","accessed_at":"2026-07-30T00:00","claim_ids":["c9"],"prev":"414dd02fbf061779e42472c615483663bc2be49989a3de8d68fa56cb352c61f6","hash":"1c6d86d73f93530a532b4bef3f51767cdd568a2047a1c9e5bc326fff37084983"}]}