Step 26: tool results

{
  "claim_id": "86063716-4ef1-48dc-abe6-02ef8b75f176",
  "reasoning": "Read AuditBench (2602.22755v4, sections 2-4), Bricken et al. 2025 auditing agents post, Cywiński et al. abstract. 2603.04426 is Delta-Crosscoder, not an agent-auditing comparison; not used. Created one for and one against argument; placed the 4 AuditBench passages (3 deduplicated into one instance); recorded the Cywiński instance and the Anthropic argument instance. Assessed supported 0.6, credence 0.6: the best (scaffolded) black-box tools lead white-box tools in AuditBench across all target configurations; the claim does not hold for unscaffolded tools or in Bricken et al.'s testbed. No subclaims minted, given the budget; the canonical form is left as is, though a later pass could consider narrowing it to 'the best black-box tools'.",
  "action_taken": "first_assessment"
}

{
  "answers": [
    {
      "note": "Recorded a first assessment (supported, 0.6). It covers AuditBench's targets, tools, scoring and the gap by training method; Bricken et al. 2025, where white-box tools beat chat-only; and Cywiński et al. 2025. arXiv 2603.04426 is a crosscoder model-diffing paper and has no agent-auditing comparison.",
      "message": "m1",
      "outcome": "changed"
    }
  ]
}