Studies of whether learned reward hacking produces emergent misalignment measure emergent misalignment comparably enough for their rates to be compared across studies.

The graph holds a question on the conditions under which reward hacking learned in RL generalizes to broader misalignment (8778713a-72ac-406f-a4e5-6014e9749bd7), with positive and null studies as its candidate answers. Its current assessment states in prose that the studies used different judges, that one group found the original judges gave false positives on open-weight models, and that rates are therefore not comparable across studies, but no node states the proposition, so the doubt cannot be assessed, cited, or reached by evidence. Whether the cross-study conflicts are partly measurement artifacts (different evaluation sets, judge models, thresholds, and scenario types such as chat versus agentic) is something anyone reconciling these results needs to refer to: the source that poses the question names consistency of measurement as a candidate explanation, and the UK AISI reproduction reports judge false positives. Proposed in neutral affirmative form; its denial is the measurement-artifact reading. It could sit under the question as a presupposition, as a moderating condition, or both; that is the question Steward's call.

The proposal is a single proposition about the world: whether studies of emergent misalignment from learned reward hacking use measures (judges, evaluation sets, thresholds, scenario types) comparable enough that their rates can be compared across studies. It is assessable with evidence, such as judge-agreement checks and reproduction reports of judge false positives. It is not an argument, a gloss, or a statement about a private person. Anyone reconciling the positive and null results would need to refer to it, so it meets the claim bar of §2. Its denial, the measurement-artifact reading, would land on the same node. The wording is workable as a canonical form and can be tightened by the Matcher and Steward. I did not open the two cited sources. Their content bears on assessment, not on admission. Whether the claim sits under the existing question as a presupposition, a moderating condition, or both is for that question's Steward.