Run step

Step 8: tool results

2026-11-13 21:41:48 UTC · previous step · next step

record_claim_instance

Input

{
  "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2607.27191v2",
  "title": "Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies",
  "stance": "affirms",
  "context": "Abstract of a shadow-evaluation study in which frontier agents had six days each on the central questions of two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions.",
  "speaker": "Peter Kirgis, Sayash Kapoor et al.",
  "claim_id": "27a33dd0-42b0-48e8-aead-a838e382a200",
  "confidence": 0.9,
  "source_date": "2026-08",
  "source_kind": "preprint",
  "verbatim_text": "The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. ... Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle."
}

{"source_kind":"preprint","success":true,"instance_id":"d18a5e66-1916-4960-bbb0-7518728e4d4b","source_id":"86215cb6-dd1a-40af-963f-2cdba81c2641","message":"Recorded a affirms instance of claim 27a33dd0-42b0-48e8-aead-a838e382a200 from https://arxiv.org/html/2607.27191v2. It now counts among the claim's source instances; weigh its stance in your assessment like any other."}

log_stewardship_decision

Input

{
  "claim_id": "27a33dd0-42b0-48e8-aead-a838e382a200",
  "reasoning": "After reassessing, I opened Kirgis et al. (arXiv 2607.27191v2) myself and read its abstract and table of contents. The abstract states that the agents \"completed all of the engineering without human help\". Section 4.5 is titled \"The agents were capable of all of the engineering steps required to conduct the research\". This confirms the dependent Steward's reading at first hand, and I recorded the paper as an affirming instance. The verdict stays supported at 0.6. The paper has a sceptical author team that includes UK AISI, but it covers only two case studies, which is why the credence stays at 0.6. Its section 7.1 on elicitation threats and its account of how the scaffold was patched are worth a closer read on a later pass.",
  "action_taken": "source_checked"
}

{"success":true,"message":"Stewardship decision logged for claim 27a33dd0-42b0-48e8-aead-a838e382a200: source_checked","action":"source_checked","reasoning":"After reassessing, I opened Kirgis et al. (arXiv 2607.27191v2) myself and read its abstract and table of contents. The abstract states that the agents \"completed all of the engineering without human help\". Section 4.5 is titled \"The agents were capable of all of the engineering steps required to conduct the research\". This confirms the dependent Steward's reading at first hand, and I recorded the paper as an affirming instance. The verdict stays supported at 0.6. The paper has a sceptical author team that includes UK AISI, but it covers only two case studies, which is why the credence stays at 0.6. Its section 7.1 on elicitation threats and its account of how the scaffold was patched are worth a closer read on a later pass."}