Step 14: tool results

add_argument

{
  "name": "The argument from AuditBench and secret-elicitation tool comparisons",
  "stance": "for",
  "claim_id": "86063716-4ef1-48dc-abe6-02ef8b75f176",
  "description": "Controlled comparisons of auditing tools find the best black-box affordances ahead of every white-box tool."
}

{"success":true,"message":"Created argument \"The argument from AuditBench and secret-elicitation tool comparisons\" (for) on claim 86063716-4ef1-48dc-abe6-02ef8b75f176. Attach its subclaim edges, then give it a written form with write_argument, and evaluate it with evaluate_argument when you record the claim's assessment.","argument_id":"d8ea5982-ca7f-4102-b2e1-d25c7a440b07"}

add_argument

{
  "name": "The argument from the Marks et al. auditing game, where interpretability tools were key",
  "stance": "against",
  "claim_id": "86063716-4ef1-48dc-abe6-02ef8b75f176",
  "description": "In Anthropic's 2025 investigator-agent study, agents with only chat tools rarely won, and interpretability tools or semantic search were needed."
}

{"success":true,"message":"Created argument \"The argument from the Marks et al. auditing game, where interpretability tools were key\" (against) on claim 86063716-4ef1-48dc-abe6-02ef8b75f176. Attach its subclaim edges, then give it a written form with write_argument, and evaluate it with evaluate_argument when you record the claim's assessment.","argument_id":"851336c7-7768-4848-9448-3179bfa582a6"}