Step 14: tool results

match_claim

{
  "text": "Adaptive attacks such as prompt injection let a stronger AI agent defeat a weaker trusted monitor.",
  "exclude_claim_id": "54994356-47c8-4a8f-8761-c9ce277a8456"
}

{"outcome":"new","is_match":false,"matched_claim_id":null,"instance_stance":"affirms","new_canonical_form":"More capable AI agents can evade weaker trusted monitors using adaptive attacks such as prompt injection.","direction_note":"The claim is stated affirmatively because the source asserts that adaptive attacks can enable more capable agents to evade weaker trusted monitors.","confidence":0.88,"reasoning":"Searches using the source wording, paraphrases, the negation, and monitoring/prompt-injection framings found related claims but no identity match. The closest candidate, “A weaker AI monitor detects less of an AI agent's hidden misbehavior as the agent's capability advantage over the monitor grows” (3c5e9fc9-3a05-44b4-bd1d-2785b377594d), concerns a general association between monitor weakness and detection, not whether an agent's adaptive attack, including prompt injection, defeats a trusted monitor. “Evasion learned against weak chain-of-thought monitors can defeat stronger monitors” (7cc47ffc-2b4b-46db-bd92-f886eb3cc21b) concerns the transfer of learned evasion in the opposite monitor-strength configuration. The prompted-or-rewritten-reasoning claim (850befb5-4f86-44e1-985c-b550514474ce) is a related mechanism, but does not assert the relative-capability and trusted-monitor proposition. These claims may bear on the new claim but turn on materially different considerations, so the source affirms a new claim.","alternative_matches":["3c5e9fc9-3a05-44b4-bd1d-2785b377594d","7cc47ffc-2b4b-46db-bd92-f886eb3cc21b","850befb5-4f86-44e1-985c-b550514474ce"],"relationship_notes":"The 3c5e9fc9 claim is a broader claim about monitor capability and detection rates; 850befb5 concerns prompted or rewritten reasoning evading chain-of-thought monitoring without requiring a capability gap. Both may be relevant support or context, but neither states this adaptive-attack claim. 7cc47ffc addresses evasion transferred from weak to stronger monitors, a distinct direction and phenomenon."}

match_claim

{
  "text": "Chain-of-thought monitoring works only while AI models externalize their reasoning legibly, which future models may stop doing.",
  "exclude_claim_id": "54994356-47c8-4a8f-8761-c9ce277a8456"
}

{"outcome":"new","is_match":false,"matched_claim_id":null,"instance_stance":"affirms","new_canonical_form":"Chain-of-thought monitoring depends on models externalizing legible reasoning, which future models may stop doing.","direction_note":"The proposition is framed affirmatively as a dependency of monitoring on legible externalized reasoning, with future loss of that condition as the stated risk.","confidence":0.83,"reasoning":"Searches of the proposed wording, paraphrases, and its negation found several close nodes, but none has the same proposition. The closest, “Future AI models will be able to deliberately obscure their reasoning to evade chain-of-thought monitoring” (316d10c8-9d15-4ee2-bd80-db230efc63e2), concerns future models' deliberate capability to evade monitors. This proposal instead asserts a general condition on monitoring's effectiveness and the possibility that future models may cease producing legible external reasoning; that could occur without deliberate evasion. The node about reasoning becoming less reliable as it departs from standard English (afe578c2-a359-4a0a-9090-9af20c889ee2) is about one kind of legibility loss, not the broader dependence and future risk. The claim that tasks requiring long serial reasoning force externalization (b06f66a2-7b2e-4b4b-a5f5-5cb040164ace) concerns a countervailing constraint. Other close results concern monitorability despite unfaithful traces, or recommended safety-case practice, and do not state this proposition. The source asserts the proposed proposition rather than merely posing it.","alternative_matches":["316d10c8-9d15-4ee2-bd80-db230efc63e2","afe578c2-a359-4a0a-9090-9af20c889ee2","b06f66a2-7b2e-4b4b-a5f5-5cb040164ace","f64fab11-5acc-4afe-9f87-512b666473d6","8dc7a499-4f6d-48e9-a7a6-b09fe2306b3a","a5780a86-4a47-40e0-85b1-488072747a9b"],"relationship_notes":"The first candidate is the closest overlapping claim but specifies deliberate future evasion; the second concerns declining human legibility as reasoning departs from standard English; the third says some tasks impose an externalization constraint. These are related or potentially relevant premises, not equivalent propositions. The candidate on monitoring despite unfaithful reasoning is a related counterpoint. The safety-case claim is a normative recommendation, and the latent-reasoning adoption claim is a more specific possible mechanism."}